That’s exactly what it is. Gaijin just using that to blanket term everything that is STANAG 5. It’s for vehicle constructed to meet STANAG 5 requirements. Not add on armour packages otherwise you could say we’re going to add this 10mm ERA brick to the UFP and because they vehicle already has 500mm on the UFP that add on ERA brick now meets STANAG 5 requirements. There not applying any sort of reasonable logic instead there just gunning for the lowest outcome that they will willingly allow. The Challenger 2 would have stayed as it is now if it weren’t for people kicking up a fuss about abrams and leopard problems. They were happy as is with the piss poor implementation and now there doing some little things to gain some community good will but the majority of the problem will still be left on the table.
i was looking at the sources in that wiki because of that. there is haynes but i dont have the book
@Smin1080p further evidence to support STANAG 4569 testing is done on individual bricks and angle of attack, where centreline refers to 0 degrees of the brick itself.
This is an organisation that conducts the STANAG 4569 test. In this exerpt, you can see when referencing image 1, they are talking about STANAG 1-6 testing, which the image shows is conducted in an indoors, fixed firing range against an individual target, not vehicle.
Source: https://www.tno.nl/media/6999/stanag4569_testcertification.pdf
@Smin1080p smoking gun evidence to suggest STANAG 4569 is tested on individual panels and uses the projectiles angle or obliquity instead of relying on any kind of vehicle.
This is pretty plainly stated now to be the case:
For STANAG 5, it is explicitly mentioned when refering to impact testing conditions, that they are testing panels individually and each panel must meet the specified requirements.
Going to bed now, but this clearly shows STANAG 4569 is tested on the panels, not the armor array as a whole which makes sense given Rafael have no way of promising STANAG 5 capabilities unless they know what vehicle its going on and how big the array of ASPRO-HMT is going to be when mounted on the vehicle.
Source is https://www.alpineco.com/media/ballistic-chart/stanag.pdf
You beautiful man. It’s always nice being able to read through 400 messages on this forum and seeing the commitment you guys have for the challenger. Great job, even if they still refuse to accept this at least.
Btw, a little thing I noticed is that the lower block looks to be 40mm back plate behind the two 40mm plates with air gaps between meaning it would be 3 40mm plates with air gaps? Am I missing something or should it provide even more protection. The he bit in the red box.
I think if they don’t listen to the community, the commitment from our side at some point will start to fade out and that will be the turning point of war thunder’s popularity, it will start to decline
Just a heads up on this one. The Wikipedia is edited by other users and also Volunteer staff. It’s not all official information. It can’t be used a a source for bug reports.
The others seem fine however to round up into a report.
When dealing with the rating of side armour the construction angle of the panel matters and is part of the spec.
Since level 5 deals with frontal arc protection the plate mounting is always relevant to the frontal arc.
You would need proof Rafael mounts ASPRO frontally at a construction angle of 0 degree (flat).
At the bottom of the wiki there’s a source button which will give you the links to the sites where all that information is taken, you’ll probably find thw website where the photo/testing is from and it’ll eliminatea the wiki link arguments.
It makes no sense for it to be this way for an armour package though as legwolf points out Rafael are advertising the armour not a vehicle. Rafael offer the armour package as STANAG 5 compliant they would have no way to guarantee that requirement if it ended up being mounted on a vehicle which wouldn’t have enough base protection for the the add on package to reach STANAG 5 levels. That’s why that whole argument is stupid you could say a 10mm plate mounted to the turret side at +|-30 is STANAG 5 compliant with that logic because the projectile still didn’t enter the tank even if it passed through the 10mm plate.
As part of their brochure they only rate the following projectiles at +/-90 degree (see the bottom table).
Spoiler
Rafael aren’t saying there that it can defeat 25mm APFSDS at +/- 90. In fact that is level 4 protection that’s described. (up to 14.5mm).
This is my read across from the Rafael brochure and the STANAG ratings.
It cannot be this;
By the simple fact that based on the STANAG definitions you would be arguing that beyond 30 degrees it can pen which would mean its gets lower performance the higher off 0 degrees which is frankly alittle silly sounding.
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.
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.
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.
https://precisionballistics.co.uk/ballistic-testing/vehicle-hard-armour/
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:
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.
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
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
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