ERA underperforming in game

[TomsGons]

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

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).

Note: I did not test the kinetic protection values of some ERA which lacks significant protection against kinetic munitions.

EXAMPLES OF PROTECTION AGAINST DIFFERENT HEAT(-FS) AND APFSDS SHELLS [details=“Spoiler”]
3BK18M

3BK12M

3BK17M

DM12

OCC 105 F1 (regular HEAT shell)

M900

3BM60

[/details]

CONTACT-1 [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on T-72B
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 80mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

CONTACT-5 [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on T-72B (1989)
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 80mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

RELICT [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on T-72B3A
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 80mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

DYNAS (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) [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on T-72M2 Moderna
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 80mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

Unnamed ERA on Challenger Mk.3, Challenger 2 (2f) (which is listed as composite armour for some reason) [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on Challenger 2 (2f)
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 38mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

Unnamed ERA on Challenger 2 TES, Challenger 2 OES [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on Challenger 2 TES
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + 40mm of aluminium alloy 7020 + air + 38mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

Duplet [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on BM Oplot-T
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 70mm of high hardness rolled armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

Nizh [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on BM Oplot-T
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + 48mm of high hardness rolled armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

Unnamed ERA on CM11, M60A3 TTS, Magach 6B Gal Batash, Magach 6C [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on CM11
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + 108mm of Cast homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

FY-4 [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on ZTZ96A
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 50mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

FY-2 [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on MBT-2000
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + 45mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

FY-1D1 [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on ZTZ99A
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + 30mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

FY-5 [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on ZTZ99A
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + 65mm of Cast homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

ROMOR-A [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on Centauro I 105 R
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + 15mm of High hardness rolled armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

AZUR [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on Leclerc AZUR
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 30mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

Unnamed ERA on turret of the Lelerc’s (near the autoloader) [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on Leclerc AZUR
Protection in protection analysis: 4mm of Structural steel + air + 20mm of Rolled homogeneous armour + ERA + 20mm of Rolled homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

Unnamed ERA on AMX-30B2 BRENUS [details=“Spoiler”]
Tested on AMX-30B2 BRENUS
Protection in protection analysis: ERA + air + 41.5mm of Cast homogeneous armour

ERA protection values:

[/details]

ERA on the M1A2 SEP V2 (missing) [details=“Spoiler”]
Would anyone be so kind as to share the protection values of the ERA on M1A2 SEP V2?
[/details]

Multi-layered ERA [details=“Spoiler”]
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:


[/details]

ERA on the Oplot tanks [details=“Spoiler”]
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.
[/details]

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.

[Minimann333-live]

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!

[TomsGons]

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

[szaros1]

yes i agree,generally era is unerperforming a lot

[zweigelt83]

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?

[TomsGons]

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.