I’m the dog that barks outside the Gaijin offices and keeps them up at night lmao
4 Likes
Lmao
1 Like
74.8t is the value i’ve used in my document. Again - This isn’t to provide exacts. This is just a “Is it more reasonable that the remaining kit would be closer to X number or Y number of tonnes?”
Beyond that, my document should not be used for exact weight metrics. Its simply estimation.
2 Likes
Right, back after an enforced break from posting due to someone suffering a sense of humour failure…I have been following this thread with interest.
The whole ‘effectiveness’ vs. vehicle vs the armour module itself can be easily answered. Rafael do not make different types of NERA block for every single vehicle in service.
-
It would be ruinously expensive.
-
It would be testing nightmare - since you would have to test your armour packages on an example of every single vehicle, withstanding every single threat weapon that the armour was designed to defeat.
-
Armour blocks might be fitted at different angles, orientations, etc. If the belief (incorrect IMO) that overall vehicle protection is considered rather than the armour array then you’d need different NERA block designs for different parts of the vehicle to account for angles, etc. This is not the case, since according to the manufacturer it is a modular system - not a bespoke jigsaw puzzle of blocks that have to be fitted in a particular order, facing a particular way, etc.
Consider also that we aren’t required to have the same proof when it comes to …oooh I dunno…let’s think of an example…totally random …Russian ERA.
A Kontakt 1 brick is considered to afford X amount of protection irrespective of the vehicle it is applied to. The armour block doesn’t care what sits underneath it - it doesn’t magically alter it’s effectiveness because it detects steel, aluminium, rolled up newspaper, whatever underneath. Nobody questions it. No need to, surely?
However when it comes to Western ERA (specifically NERA) Gaijin can and indeed will go to almost ridiculous lengths to argue the toss that it only offers this protection when mounted to X vehicle at X angle and cannot possibly be more than the bare minimum.
THIS is the inconsistency that drives people up the wall. Closely followed by am exasperation that common sense appears to fly clean out of the window. Do they seriously think millions of pounds and tonnes of additional weight are applied to an AFV in the West yet magically provide close to zero additional real armoured protection?
…I mean, really?
9 Likes
Did you use 64 tonnes or 62.5 Tonnes?
Agreed, but there’s some specific standards that must be met by STANAG 5, that does require vehicle considerations. 30 degrees off centerline heading is pretty vague but gaijin has interpretted this to be the centreline of a vehicle, not the brick themselves.
We do have evidence to show bricks are tested individually (no back plate) so we can be pretty sure that the bricks are just angled to simulate 30 degree heading / 67 degree Angle of Attack. We even have documents showing this.
The only breaker here is if they just decide the back plate is part of ASPRO-HMT (its not). If they do though, I can’t refute or be bothered to argue the lack of something happening lol
My reports are about as good as it gets for ASPRO-HMT if I say so myself. If this ain’t good enough, then Gaijin is insatiable and I won’t be trying any more.
8 Likes
62.5t is the weight, as represented by the game for a Challenger 2
74.8 is the weight of TES in game. So i’ve taken both from ingame values to make my estimates
kontakt-5 adds 2.5t = protection against 120mm apfsds with 650mm pen
cr2 tes kit over 10t = protection against some dude with a shotgun
1 Like
Use 64 tonnes, if we are trying to use irl logic you need to use correct irl values.
Thanks, though I didn’t have that documentation at the time and all other sources confirmed the ingame values.
This kind of stuff takes a rather decent amount of time to pur together so I can’t up and change it on the fly haha
I’ll revisit it again and make adjustments accordingly when I have time.
1 Like
2.07 steel
6.71 aluminium
We can do a simple version by subtracting 1.4 from these 2 numbers, leaving 0.67t for steel and 5.31t for aluminium
that would eliminate the steel, at the same time making tankogran invaild?
1 Like
Some madman is also planning to take a magnet to the Mk3 bulldog at bovington too lol
We’ll soon find out for certain if he goes through with it.
5 Likes
But that would have a much greater consequences, as it would mean that Tankgrad is not a vaild source.
The moment source starts having inconsistencies it turns into Jane
The problem with the magnet if it doesn’t work it doesn’t mean its aluminium
Only Russia has the best ERA
NATO/Israeli ERA is junk (heavy and low KE protection and CE protection)
Xdddddd
2 Likes
The idea is to try and rule out steel. If it sticks, we can be fairly confident in Tankograds claim.
If it doesn’t: it can be aluminium, composite, or something else.
Sometimes with research, you have to work against your own point to prove it haha
Instead of looking for sources to suggest it’s steel, looking for sources that state its aluminium, or something else for example.
It’s hard to when I obviously have a stake in this race, but I try to be as unbias as possible and investigate any claim, to try and disprove each other.
Removing bias searches like specifically looking for steel, and instead just trying to find the material, without specifying what it could be to the search engine, returns the most unbias sources.
I can promise you, there are 0, at least english ones
1 Like
I say its Du cause my source (i made it up just want to annoy American mains)
6 Likes
I looked, yeah haha
There’s no evidence on Chinese forums, model making forums, chinese blogs, Israeli blogs, US blogs, Archived websites from 2005-2008, russian blogs, etc.
Nothing for bulldog, warrior or TES.
…nothing except Tankograd saying it’s steel which…while we’d want more evidence - Lines up with what i’d expect from the weight and MOD thinking at the time. Aluminium is both weaker and more expensive than steel, even as alloy. They’re more likely to have gone with steel for both cost and structural stability.
1 Like