Before i start, feel free to argue and discuss on the inaccuracies or things i may have missed Also, I am new war thunder forums (not war thunder itself), so i apologise if any images got mixed up
THE PROBLEM
I have noticed that ERA underperforms in game, aka does not actually stop as much penetration as is listed when hovering on the era in x-ray tank preview. I have tested almost all of the ERA in game (excluding the M1A2 SEP V2 since i do not have it and i may have forgotten about some other tanks).
I have posted screenshots of how ERA performs in protection analysis against heat-fs. I have used 3BK18M for all of the chemical protection tests and M900 for kinetic protection tests to be extra fair, though I have found there to be no difference between different HEAT-FS and APFSDS shells (excluding tandem heat of course).
EXAMPLES OF PROTECTION AGAINST DIFFERENT HEAT(-FS) AND APFSDS SHELLS:
Notes: excluding DYNAS with 100 mm of kinetic protection on the upper front plate and turret cheeks since i didn’t find a reliable way to test it without distorting the protection values with extra protection from the composites
Tested on T-72M2 Moderna
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 80mm of Rolled homogeneous armour
Unnamed ERA on Challenger Mk.3, Challenger 2 (2f):
Spoiler
Notes: The ERA is listed as composite armour for some reason
Tested on Challenger 2 (2f)
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 38mm of Rolled homogeneous armour
Notes: Duplet ERA protection values vary from how they are grouped, it is explained in more detail below at ‘ERA on the Oplot tanks’
Tested on BM Oplot-T
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 70mm of high hardness rolled armour
Unnamed ERA on CM11, M60A3 TTS, Magach 6B Gal Batash, Magach 6C:
Spoiler
Notes: CM11 appears to have less protection than M60A3 TTS and Magach 6C, I have yet to test it on Magach 6B Gal Batash; read UPDATES tab at the bottom (which will be updated soon)
Tested on CM11
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + 108mm of Cast homogeneous armour
Notes: if you cannot find it - it is on either side of the turret near the autoloader integrated into the spaced armour
Tested on Leclerc AZUR
Protection in protection analysis: 4mm of Structural steel + air + 20mm of Rolled homogeneous armour + ERA + 20mm of Rolled homogeneous armour
Notes: Would anyone be so kind as to share the protection values of the ERA on M1A2 SEP V2?
Multi-layered ERA:
Spoiler
Notes: -
Tested on T-90M
Protection in protection analysis: 1st layer of Relict ERA + 2nd layer of Relict ERA + 11mm of High hardness rolled armour + 8mm of Rubber-fabric screens + air + 80mm of Rolled homogeneous armour
ERA protection values: for some reason 1st layer of Relict ERA lacks protection against kinetic munitions:
ERA on the Oplot tanks:
Spoiler
Notes: -
3 layers of Duplet has protection values of (taken from the side of the hull):
2 layers of Duplet has protection values of (taken from the side of the turret):
1 layer of Duplet has protection values of (taken from the upper front plate):
Weird cluster of Duplet near the gun has protection values of:
It seems like the ERA is both grouped weirdly which affects protection values as well as having incorrect protection values like on the side of the hull.
SUMMARY
I have to say that it seems like the only ERA which has about as much protection as the x-ray protection values claim is the french ERA along with ERA on the Challenger 2 TES and Challenger 2 OES.
NOTES:
I did not test the kinetic protection values of some ERA which lacks significant protection against kinetic munitions.
I did not test how effective tandem-HEAT penetrators in any way.
I am not able to test the ERA on the Abrams sepV2 since i do not have the tank. If anyone is willing to test it for me, I will gladly add it to this post.
EDITS:
UPDATE: to add to how era underperforms in game/is modelled incorrectly, CM11 has half as much HEAT protection as magach6C and m60a3TTS even though i’m pretty sure they have the same ERA
Unfortunately the protection analysis function is flawed in and of itself, there is so much in-game footage of rounds penetrating where the analysis says they shouldn’t, and vice versa. All hail the mechanic that is “volumetric” armour!
Protection analysis may not have true values but from all of my experience playing with ERA (I have almost every tank I listed in the post above except the lecerc AZUR) as well as against it, the values in the protection analysis seem pretty much spot-on
Currently in War Thunder, there is a noticeable imbalance in how Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) is modeled across different nations.
Russian Relikt ERA consistently provides very high protection against both chemical and kinetic threats, while ERA on NATO and other modern MBTs appears significantly less effective—especially against APFSDS.
This raises a core question:
Why does Relikt outperform all other ERA types by such a large margin, particularly against kinetic rounds?
It’s not that russian ERA outperforms everything, it’s that 1) nato in general doesn’t rely much on era and 2) nato era is built with a different doctrine in mind.
Russian/ukrainian era provides heavy heat protection despite its size because 1) russia/ukraine has more experience making it and 2) it focusses on raw stopping power without taking safety precausions for nearby infantry.
Nato tanks are built for mostly long engagement, which is why they have much thicker composites that provide a lot of protection forwards (rather than sideways like turret armour on soviet designs) thus for the most part they don’t require era, so much so germany and sweden prefer external composite plates over era (leopard 2 pso, strv 122). And for the same reason they don’t bother to develop era with kinetic protection. Other nato countries rely on it more than those two, but baseline tank models are still without era (like abrams, leclerc, etc.), whereas russia and ukraine implement it as baseline protection (aka you would see abrams, etc. without era, but not so much for t90m’s, oplots, etc.)
Perfect example to illustrate the different philosophies is to compare contact 5 and the dorchester armour package for challengers: both have about equivalent chemical protection, however the era on the challenger 2 is much thicker and heavier because it has a ‘containment’ area which catches spall going away from the tank, thus it’s much safer to be around. Also, the challenger 2 used extra composites for places like the gigantic lowerplate, whereas Russian/ukrainians put era there.
In summary, era protection values are based on real values, It’s just that the expectations for era are vastly different in russian/ukraine and nato: russia and ukraine rely on it a lot more, thus they spend a lot more of their budget developing better era, like relikt, contact 5, nizh (ukrainian), etc.
As a Counterpoint, the performance of APFSDS is not based directly on observed performance as one could come to expect from Gaijin. But is estimated in game based on the physical characteristics of the round.
The problem is that Gaijin uses an arbitrarily modified Lanz-Odermatt formula. which is known to degrade performance to a degree. and with doing similar massaging for armor (for the most part) APFSDS suffer unduly poor performance.
A similar way to approximate ERA performance should be implemented. Where it is based of known kinetic energy of the flyer plate(e.g. adjusted by some factors such as; angle of incidence and angle of arrival) and the ratio of mass to the projectile as to assert momentum transferred and work backward to figure out the effective quantity of lost mm of penetration of the shell.
The argument mixes some correct points with conclusions that don’t really hold up.
First, ERA wasn’t originally a Soviet/Russian concept. The first operational use was by Israel (Blazer ERA in the early 1980s), with the Soviets introducing Kontakt-1 shortly after. So it’s not accurate to say Russia/Ukraine simply has more experience—both sides have decades of development.
The doctrine difference is real, but often overstated. Soviet/Russian tanks rely more on ERA as part of their base protection due to weight and design constraints. NATO tanks rely more on heavy composite armor (Chobham/Dorchester) and use ERA as an add-on. But that doesn’t mean NATO ERA is “worse” or that it isn’t designed to counter kinetic threats—those capabilities exist, they’re just less visible or differently implemented.
Kontakt-5 and Relikt are effective because they can disrupt APFSDS rods through moving plates, but this effect is situational and modern penetrators are designed to counter it. They are not universally superior solutions. They also come with trade-offs like higher explosive force, safety risks for nearby infantry, and dependence on coverage.
The key mistake is comparing ERA-heavy Russian designs directly with composite-heavy NATO designs. That’s not ERA vs ERA—it’s two different protection philosophies. NATO compensates with stronger base armor, while Russia compensates with more aggressive ERA use.
The perception that Relikt is far superior mostly comes from how it’s modeled. In-game, Russian ERA often provides strong protection against both HEAT and kinetic rounds, while NATO composite armor and ERA effects are likely underrepresented. So the imbalance players see is less about real-world superiority and more about inconsistent implementation.
I recommend you the book ‘Terminal Ballistic’ written by Zvi Rosenberg and Erez Dekel. The idea of ERA is talked in chapter 7, part 2.
And there’s a well-known bragging article published by NII Stali here:
All parameter for calculation is transparent: plate - 20mm. Flying speed - 370mps. Yawing angel -15degs. See whether there’s any over/underestimation of things.
The existing KE equivalence - 200-250mm includes the sideskirt, within a <30deg angle.
mb for all the inconsistencies i provided, i’m not incredibly well versed abt ERA irl, but my main point is that russia/ukraine has consistenly used more resources to develop better era as compared to other nations.
Israel being the first to invent it has mostly replaced it with composites or APS, the US has only used ERA on some upgrade packages for the m60’s and abrams’es (like SEPv1/2/3), etc.;
Russian/Ukraine on the other hand have implemented it as a ‘basic’ protection measure and have created countless designs and improvements.
On the count of in game:
i don’t have much to add, you’re right. ERA and composite modelling is horrible, i’ve noticed not so long ago that CM11 has half as much heat protection as magach6C and m60a3TTS even though they share the same ERA.
I do see your point, though from all my experience of playing tanks with and against ERA i can’t say apfsds has poor performance against ERA with kinetic protection. I’m not denying your point, it may have worse performance than it should, it’s just that most ERA in game evidently has much much less protection than it should (both against kinetic and chemical penetrators) since ERA only starts having effective protection at high angles even though it should still be effective at a flat angle.
If so,
Almost all ERA in game (only expections being era on m60a3tts, magach6c and french tanks) underperforms since it provides 10-60% less protection than listed on the statcard.
Basically meaning that the implementation of era is both shit and inconsistent (same era on different tanks behaves differently sometimes).
Note: i was unable to test the ERA on the abrams so i cannot speak about the abrams.
Ok ok I see. Well I suppose the speed of the projectile does make quite a huge difference in how ERA would react so I’d be curious to know that’s why there’s a discrepancy.
I’ve just been testing different calibres and on the protection analysis it always shows the same amount of armour but the chance of penetration changes. It starts becoming noticeable on 90mm apfsds. I haven’t seen any difference between slow/fast shells.
I wouldn’t totally trust hangar armor analysis, I’ve made my share of contributions for bug reports showing it clearly has discrepancies with the in-match model.
I think it’d be a lot more relevant with custom battle testing (or custom map) to make sure it’s not just the hangar analysis showing bullshit.
I cannot (or at least don’t know how to) test it in a custom battle but i know that some issues with era modelling persist in games, like double layered era barely adds protection compared to a single layer or how some era has much less protection than it should
