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’ll be sure to give it a look, thx
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.
Can I get a TLDR ?
Im guessing you mean a short summary(?)
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
Yeah it would require some SDK knowledge or finding a map with most vehicles available to shoot, which might be possible.
I noticed double layer doesn’t work unless it’s the weird slanted ERA blocks on the side of the BMPT and such and suddenly it eats 500mm pen APFSDS for lunch.
i haven’t found double layer era to do much in general, it adds a little bit of protection at high angles but other than that not much
Hitting 2 plates raises the protection to almost 1500mm.
Well, the French Brenus ERA doesn’t have the 100mm of KE protection and around 600mm of CE protection it should have. Interestingly, it’s the only NATO ERA similar to the Soviet one, and they haven’t corrected it.
I also remember a report about the ROMOR ERA, which was missing some KE protection and had significant CE protection.
In short, I’m not very sure the developers have any NATO ERAs modeled correctly; I don’t even trust the current Blazer protection.
well. u put lot of effort XD. at last its looks cool and gives u feeling for some protection XD. i steel remember when i bought turms. its lookd so powerful XD. ( i did not presed S during test drive so D) honestly its a bad time to say someting in russian side does not works or underperfom,ing. people are alredy pissed of from terminators XD
The TTS has era modelled correctly, aka it has the according protection values at a 0 degree angle, the only other tanks I’ve found to do this is magach 6C (weirdly enough CM11 doesn’t even though it has the same era pretty sure) and amx30b2 brenus
Amx 30 has era with 400mm of CE pretty sure and it does provide that at a zero degree angle even though similar ERA like contact 1 doesn’t (you can check the pictures in the original post)
I’ve found blazer to only work as it should on the upper plate of m60’s, not the turret
Turms-t is just an ass tank, it’s not even that russian tanks don’t work, it’s just that this specific tank is ass. The turms-t is a minor upgrade to the t72a unlike an overhaul on the t72b and thus worse than the t72b in almost every way except for thermals: worse hp/t, dogshit composites, worse vertical drive and probably something else I’m forgetting
According to the report, apart from having 100mm of KE protection, it should be able to stop the Milan missile (700mm CE).
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Z0H3xuwhqEkH
The Romor report.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RDpEDW9EHG3n
I was more talking about the general implementation of era rather than modelling of a specific piece of era. It’s two different things: the implementation of a mechanic rather than the performance of one specific piece in that mechanic.
What i mean is that the b2 brenus era is modelled to have 400mm of protection and it does have it in matches unlike most other era.
Maybe the amx30b2 brenus era protection values doesn’t reflect the irl ones, but that’s more of just begging gaijin to fix a specific modelling mistake.
