Sure - but when they say in multiple brochures “azimuth ± 30 degrees frontal arc from centreline, including sides” that implies that whatever protection that ERA package provides is doing it at much closer to 0 degrees/square on for the frontal armour. The add on armour blocks on the TES are huge, I refuse to believe they give such little protection, when the recycled backpacks full of c4 they hang on the side of of 80BVMs is good enough to stop a 120mm APFSDS.
4 Likes
This is not logically sound.
There are a host of reasons that do not require respect for them to do this.
Finally, their explanation is so riddled with inconsistency it’s insulting from an academic point of view. This explanation wouldn’t survive a thesis defense at any halfway decent university.
2 Likes
Here is what is known publicaly
They army built five hulls with DU armor.
The army reuses old hulls to build all models of the Abrams after ~1995.
Therefore, all models of the Abrams that are M1A1 HC and above can credibly be given DU armor in the hull applying the standards used on vehicles throughout the game.
Any counter argument by Gaijin is applying different standards to the Abrams than those available to dozens of other vehicles in the game.
TL;DR Gaijin is treating USA MBT’s unfairly.
5 Likes
So it’s a little bit complicated when it comes to calculating the total protection of the TES’ bricks but:
A) The BVM’s ERA is designed with a different mission in mind, and you can’t really compare them.
B) The TES’ Hybid NERA/ERA are made of small blocks. The blocks themselves get tested individually, so firing PMB-090 at a singular block at 67 degrees, would only provide you with roughly 48mm of protection against the round, because there’s less material to stop the PMB-090, compared to if it was a direct 0 degree hit. We know this has to be AT LEAST 48mm at 67 degrees, as the manufacturer states it’s a level 5 product.
I further explain this in the official bug report here - Community Bug Reporting System and have updated it for clarity.
Essentially:
TES’ ASPRO-HMT bricks should stop 48mm of KE (ON A SINGLE BLOCK) at 67 degrees.
At 0 degrees, it is 120mm of KE resistance.
This is because again, at 67 degrees, you’re fighting roughly 20% of the passive plates, but at an angle, but still manage to achieve STANAG level 5.
At 0 degrees, you’re encountering 100% of the passive tiles, and therefore are facing MORE armor, giving you 120mm.
My maths and reasoning are explained in the report o7
3 Likes
At 67 degrees, your round is following the blue tragectory, only encountering 20% of the passive plates inside. The armor thickness therefore to achieve Level 5, is at least 48mm as Rafael says just this, stops PMB-090.
At 0 degrees, you can see the black tragectory takes it through ALOT more passive tiles. If 20% is equal to 48mm (the lowest value possible to reach STANAG 5 at 67 degrees), then 100% is equal to 240 (you half this value, as angled armor is equal to double the equivillent thickness and needs to be corrected for a flat angle.) so you end up with 120mm of KE at 0 degrees.
if the bricks were extended lengthways, you’d see them at 240mm at 67 degrees, and 120 at 0, but because we’re testing on individual blocks, without the backing plate, we’re given 48 at 67 degrees, and 120 at 0.
So I guess if you want to count the entire array of blocks WITHOUT the backing plate, you get 240mm of KE at 67 degrees.
120 at 0 degrees.
We know just 20% of the blocks thickness when angled, provides 48mm of protection, because if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be STANAG 5.
Because of this, we can solve for 100%, which is 240.
So blocks next to each other, where the round interacts with all layers of the blocks, encounters 240MM of KE.
if this was a 0 degree angle attack, we must divide by two, because angled armor effectively doubles the thickness of non-angled armor, giving us 120MM.
67 degrees (ENTIRE ARRAY) = 240mm
0 degrees (ENTIRE ARRAY) = 120mm
67 degrees (SINGULAR BLOCK) = 48mm
0 degrees (SINGULAR BLOCK) = 120mm
Of course, to me this makes sense, but i’ll have @Gunjob review it and try to poke holes where he can, to clean this up.
The green X is where the round should have stopped (roughly) as 1 block is STANAG 5.
11 Likes
Didnt you say you were taking a break over the weekend?
4 Likes
11 Likes
Nice that’s one arrest. Doesn’t defeat the point I already made.
Best not to respond further on this s there is no place for this on the forums
1 Like
For real though, these are now the answers I feel pretty confident on and am happy to pass to @Gunjob
One block stops 25MM at 67 degrees at 500m, using only 20% of it’s tiles. Therefore one block at 67 degrees, gives at least 48mm KE, otherwise it wouldn’t be STANAG 5.
Given this diagram shows singular blocks, and the TES uses blocks side by side, we can actually use the figure found in 20% of the tiles, to find out what KE resistance is provided at 67 degrees, if the blocks were put side by side and used 100% of their tiles.
The KE resistance of the blocks themselves, next to each other should be 240MM at 67 degrees, and 120MM at 0 degrees.
This is because a singular block is rated to STANAG level 5, where only 20% of its blocks encounter the penetrator and still stop the round, which means only 20% of the block, at 67 degrees gives you 48mm of KE. You can then use maths to determine what 100% is, which is 240mm.
13 Likes
They’re trying to make money. On some level they respect everyone, just look ay the way they responded to the review bomb/boycott threat.
This is because they aren’t communicating what they should, that they are balancing things based on what they feel should be competitive. Instead they sit back and try to intellectualize a decision that is not purely objective. You’re right, it’s very inconsistent.
love your work on the cr 2 but from what i remember that is not true, the was a document stating that there was a limit of 5 DU hulls but it was changed to pretty much unlimited
But wasn’t that changed right before they were making the SEPv3 so it could of gone to that
not from what i remember
i could be wrong but im sure the change was made a bit before the SEPv3 had started being made but i could be wrong on that
I’m not a huge fan of american vics so I can’t say i’ve sunk even a fraction of the amount of time I did on CR2, as I have with anything Abrams related. Gaijin’s evidence seemed pretty clear cut, and any time i’ve asked for American mains to present their evidence to the contrary, it’s been nothing but vitriol and extremely lazy bug reports that obviously won’t pass.
I’m all for it getting its DU hull, but Gaijin presented documents to say it was limited to 5. Why SEPv2 wasn’t just one of these five is beyond me, and i’d be pretty upset too if my “upgrade” was more weight and more vulnerability lol
That said, I haven’t yet seen anyone show anything that would conclusively go “That’s wrong” to Gaijins original claims. Happy to be shown stuff though! A big part of research is proving claims wrong, or creating conversation about a topic to deepen an understanding of it.
I don’t mind being shown I was wrong, but bug reports that start with “Yo wazzup” isn’t worth reading imho lmao
1 Like
not gonna lie boiling all of the evidence provided by the community as “vitriol and lazy bug reports” is not only wrong but straight up disrespectfull, there was definetly vitriol but there also were plenty of well constructed arguments with backing evidence, gaijin’s own devblog was FAR from conclusive in the first place, i dont have the time to compile all of the community’s evidence, but its all there to see and it while it may take a while you should probably look at it.
dear war thunder is not how you start a bug report
2 Likes
I’ve asked on multiple occassions for folks to point me to their research and sources to back up their claims and I got folks lashing out and being extremely disrespectful. If folks aren’t going to be civil about it, it’s not a conversation I want to have, personally.
I do hope they add it, as I think it’s fairly hipocritical of them to give leeway to some vehicles because some tech demonstrators mounted equipment, or prototypes/rare occurances while not affording the same to other vehicles. Gaijin does struggle in the consistancy of its rules.
But Gaijin addressed the problem in a post, and provided their sources and reasoning. I asked folks to see their responses and it was a reach at best. I appreciate drawing likely conclusions but “Wazzup Gaijin, giv e Abrams its DU in the hull because they extended the amount of DU hulls they had past 5 in the document”
It’s not a credible source. There’s no several documents suggesting a figure that i’ve been shown, or even if they did make DU hulls past the 5 before V3. It’s guesswork, which, when it comes to Gaijin is something you have to barely rely on. It seems the moment I suggest Gaijin is in the right for having the discussion, addressing it head on and presenting their side, folks flock to sling abuse in my direction. It discredits their claims further and makes me not want to engage in the topic at all.
Happy to be shown some sources that say it does have DU in the hull, but right now, It’s a conversation I don’t particularly care for. Especially when folks are so heated about it to the guys who act as messengers.
1 Like