This is fascinating to watch tbh
3 Likes
Would this be correct ??
here, ballistic resistant glass that can reach stanag lvl 4. it even has a video of testing.
somehow that glass has a stanag lvl 4 but aspro-h cant reach lvl 5.
someone tell the phone number of MOD. i want to sell them glass
4 Likes
Gunjob’s point (correct me if i’m wrong) is that the ASPRO-HMT is STANAG 5 certified, when tested 30 degrees off centreline of the vehicle.
So we’re looking at a 60 degree impact angle. There’s no way this impact angle allows for the entire composite array inside the blocks to be engaged, so you’re only hitting some tiles. not all of them.
Even still, it got STANAG 5 certified, with just the round failing to penetrate through those limited composite tiles.
If the impact angle was 0, we’d be firing against even MORE composite tiles, and therefore the round would be facing higher KE resistance.
So the current game implementation of 30mm KE is incorrect. at 60 degrees angle of attack (30 degrees off centreline of vehicle), ASPRO-HMT should have AT MINIMUM 84mm of KE resistance.
At lower angles like 0 degrees, we should be engaging more composite material and the KE resistance therefore rises to higher values. Perhaps not by much, but up to something like 100mm KE.
The big thing here, is we can see the testing centers fire at individual tiles, NOT the array. This is proven across multiple test centers. So we cannot count the steel backing board in this calculation. ONLY ASPRO-HMT. The blocks themselves are STANAG 5, not the armor array. Therefore:
60 degree AoA = 84mm KE
0 Degree AoA = 104mm KE?
5 Likes
yea basicly, rafael reached the conclusion it reasists 25mm ap firing at the side of the block
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?
1 Like
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?
1 Like
The 200mm block is composed of 40mm RHa + 20mm Air +40mm RHa + 100mm Air
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.
2 Likes
aahhh no i meant gunjob/smins argument, not yours, my bad.
1 Like
Here is a plate which is level 3.
It hasn’t been shot at from the side.
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.
12 Likes
Yes, but i am just talking about it’s over all width which is 200mm !!
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.
8 Likes
On another note :
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.
4 Likes
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.
1 Like
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
3 Likes
I understand completely what legwolf is saying and it makes sense
Ngl both gun and leg make good arguments… I don’t even know what to think now.
Gotcha