I just saw this on the tanks subreddit, I’ve never seen it before and I have no idea if the view is useful or not but figured I’d post it anyway.
Also, can we have the eyes on the stock camo please and they’re now canonical. Thnx.
1 Like
That is a rather new picture. You can realise that due to wheels being different. You can see the old design wheel that was cannibalized.
1 Like
I’m not sure I follow the logic here, pretty much every source i’ve found from actual ballistic test companies state they test using the panels themselves, not the entire vehicle.
On the actual brochure, we can even see ASPRO mounted frontally on an APC (Bulldog I believe) which should tell you this product was tested beyond just being side armor. STANAG 4569 testing is conducted per panel. We see that on the test proceedure document I submitted last night and that they change the impact angle of the projectile. Given its not vehicle mounted during testing and we now have multiple sources suggesting the panels are individually tested in indoor ranges, and actual test parameters suggesting my interpretation of 30 degrees ± angle of attack of the projectile is correct, I believe the LAV document is being misinterpretted.
Here’s the Rafael brochure again, showing ASPRO frontally mounted:
3 Likes
With the companies test requirements stating they test individual panels as well, this completely tears down the “its the entire armor array that’s STANAG 5” theory.
We’ve seen across more than 3 sources, STANAG 4569 testing is done on an individual panel basis.
Therefore, ASPRO-HMT to qualify as STANAG 5, it would have had to survive 25MM APFSDS at a 30 degree angle. No backing board. Just the panels.
3 Likes
thats the thing, i dont think rafael mounts anything, they just supply the era
Also adding to the fact surviving 14.5 in 180 cone does not eliminate survivng 25 in 30, as in 90 degree bullets are more likely to miss the composite part, so the ke protection wont be as efective, remember composite is what focuses on ke, while explosives on ce
1 Like
I dont understand why you would test armour from a single angle, it means if there is ERA on the rear of the vehicle it would imply that has zero armour value lol
3 Likes
They have provided demonstrators for vehicles like the striker, but ASPRO is rated STANAG 5 across any vehicle it mounts to as per brochure. The vehicle here does not matter. The bricks are STANAG 5
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.