knowing gaijin theyll state the era in the front is also angled
we do have this tryker
Spoiler
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oeuMzDuAbXI/VO6m-IbwypI/AAAAAAAAq7o/bIjW-fmBflA/s1600/aspro_h_stryker.jpg
but im not sure that in the front is aspro
I mean it is angled, but it’s angled way less than 60 degrees.
Don’t get hung up on it: Bradley does not use ASPRO-HMT, it uses another Rafael solution. This is simply a demonstrator like the 2008 Striker.
Using Gunjobs interpretation of 30 degres off centerline of vehicle, as seen in the document he shared, for side armor the angle of impact is 67 degrees on Chally2.
Because that impact angle is so high and the bricks are tested individually, at 67 degrees, the ASPRO-HMT brick achieves 49mm of pen resistance at least.
We know ASPRO-HMTs insides are made up of consecutive plates/tiles of reactive(explosive) and passive(composite) armor.
If STANAG 5 is achieved at 67 degrees, the round is stopped before it’s even encountered all of the passive plates.
Therefore, if say…20% of the plates are hit at 67 degrees and STANAG 5 is achieved, at 0 degrees, the round is encounting 100% of the passive plates but at a flat angle. Given 20% at an angle is STANAG 5, 100% at no angle should be either equivillent or ever so slightly higher protection given the round sees more passive tiles.
I have given them the ballpark values of 67 degrees = 49mm
0 degrees = 84mm
PMB-090 (25mm apfsds) at 0 degrees pens 83mm, and at 60 degrees, pens 48
The reason the value gets HIGHER as the angle gets lower, is because the round is facing more composite tiles and thus thicker armor, as opposted to only 20% at a sharp angle.
Remember: The blocks are tested individually. In the STANAG 4569 tests, there are no other bricks either side of the block being fired at, and therefore at 67 degrees, if the round is stopped, it’s been stopped by roughly 20% of the bricks total length.
If shot at by the front, you are seeing more tiles the round must go through which is why the armor gets thicker at 0 degrees.
1 Like
This is the striker ASPRO-H demonstrator by the way.
2 Likes
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