dont worry, buffs/fixes were forwarded as suggestions 2 years ago, im sure it’ll be resolved any day now
1 Like
What do you mean, of course this 10 tons of ERA can barely stop an RPG. It would be obsurd to expect it to be able to
/s :P
they added all that weight for fun!
Battle scars (more recently even ukraine damage reports) show that the composite slabs are supported by screws (even in a damage report that broke the upper cheek roof showed the internal slabs to be held by such screws), and in such battle reports it also shows that the angled front part of the mantlet does have such composite slab screws, so its pretty correlatable to see that it has mantlet composite
I know which photos you mean everything does seem to indicate composite is there but gaijin just decided no. If someone hasn’t made a report using these photos, I may be able to make one assuming the photos aren’t sensitive.
1 Like
Can always DM someone like a Gunjob and check to see if he thinks they are okay to be used.
aye ofc then, if they are there are still some correlations to use as im pretty sure even Challenger 1 used the same type of composite slab fixation as shown in some old abandoned tanks, + im pretty sure i remember some photos of Challenger 2 factory new without the outer tin lining n it showed the screws pretty well, gotta find it again tho xd
Sure, I’ve posted them here before and they are widely available on the internet, but I can do that if needed.
To be honest though, as the reports already have the documents hidden to the public, it shouldnt be an issue.
On another topic, do we know gaijins rationale for making the lower front plate composite block so ineffective against KE munitions compared to the internal composite?
Britain Tax?
uses intended values for the side @ 60 degrees, more or less
Do we know the actual composition of the block? I assumed due to its weight it was more akin to the thick composite in the UFP/Turret rather than the more light weight composite on the side.
as far as i can remember it’s usually referred to as being Chobham? i might have to look back at the very bad report i made that i wish i could delete to see if there are any sources i use for that
No luck with quotes on the Chobham thing sadly
Expected Add-On Protection
Wheres this from? is this a source.
from gaijin’s spreadsheet of intended values, looks like it’s been locked down since unfortunately
WOW. Is this what they thought the TES ought to stop… And yet they gave us copy paste values from the 2F, we had to wait a year to even get an increase of ce protection from 400>500mm.
Quick and dirty comparisons (protection across the side can vary quite a bit depending on where you aim)
Intended Values
You can see how close the LFP protection is compared to the side protection, with the exception being the CE effectiveness on the TES because iirc the DL2F had a hard-coded effectiveness cap removed?
do we know the side panel protection irl?
for the DL2F? Not sure. I would refer to Legwolf’s report for the ASPRO blocks though: Community Bug Reporting System