Weight might be an important indicator of protection but an indicator isn´t the same as evidence. Ie. its not enough. We have no sources specifying the composition or requirements for Ariete´s armor.
Given this precarious position these are the thing you can push forward that will improve ingame armor rating:
-
Demanding equalizing the armor protection of both turret cheeks. The left cheek has singificantly better armor rating than the right cheek, which doesn´t make any sense. Left cheeck effectively protects vs BM42 while the right one doesn´t.
-
Demonstrating that the front hull armor is a lot thicker than currently modeled and therefore demanding the same armor rating as the front turret.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MA8ugNxKkXQm
This bug report that was passed to the devs has sources all stating the armour is wayyyy higher than the current laughable in game model. It weighs 55 tons ffs, unless they are using special air in their spaces armour that weighs several tons, this isn’t just a bad Gaijin guesstimate, this is blatantly incorrect and a major nerf to the Ariete, which has to deal with subpar mobility due to the weight yet doesn’t get the advantage of the armour.
It’s no 2A7 but come on, the Ariete is not just a bunch of air and apparently lead bricks.
2 Likes
On the other hand, 55 tons is on the lighter side for this kind of tanks. Biggest drawback is that there is no public source out there talking about requirements that I´m aware off.
the linked bug report has the public sources listed for Ariete protection
1 Like
Well I meant primary sources, something concrete and undisputable indicating exactly what level of protection they wanted for the tank. Secondary sources just ain gonna cut it. I just tried a quick search for patents that may be related to Ariete´s armor. No luck.
Yeah cause that’s all gonna be classified obviously lol. Idk what you are looking for. All top tier MBTs are modern enough that their protection is classified, so ALL WE HAVE are these “secondary” sources. In the case of the Ariete there is more than one brochure by Iveco / OTO Melara (the manufacturer for the Ariete and most Italian armoured vehicles) that states the frontal protection as being more than what we are given in game. As far as non-classified sources go, all of those are far better than gaijin saying “well I guess this just has some air in here because we feel like it.”
2 Likes
You meant to say you underestimate the intelligence of the developers… Because let’s be honest only they get to that low level of intelligence… Here’s a preview while they have a high level discussion among themselves.😂
Well thats not the case at all since we have plenty of primary sources regarding armor of most modern tanks. The Ariete case is unique as there are no primary sources declassified. But we need to finds ways around it. What posters and brochures are you talking about?
link me one primary source that contains the official protection levels for the
M1A2
CR2
Type 10
Leopard 2a6 onwards
STRV 122B+
etc.
none of these tanks have documents AKA sources that are not classified for us. You do realise that? every top tier MBT armour is totally made up, hell the old CR2 leaks on teh armour proved it was at that time about half as effective as it is IRL, then they halfed it.
The brochures and pictures are about all we can use.
AS far as anyones seen the modern versions of arietes do not use spaced armour hulls, that is a protection system from the 70s…
1 Like
M1A2, CR2 and Leo 2A6 protection levels are all described in the following (among others that repeat the same figures):
For Type 10 there are no sources though there are versions of it withstanding its own APFSDS (no info on distance), meaning its turret protection is somewhere between 650-700mm effective.
For Strv122+ and Leo 2A7 onwards there are no figures out there other what you can guesstimate indirectly.
What is this source?
its dated 1991 yeah ? CR2 service entry date is nearly a decade later in 1998,
Wonder how its got the Leopard 2a6 protection levels when its from 2001 service entry date.
M1A2 is the one that entered service around these times.
so yeah how reliable is this source?
Just to say, this source says teh T80U and T80 ERA is in service at htis time yet the challangers etc arent, so again how reliable is it.
1 Like
Should have expected this type of reaction. Oh well. M1A2 entered service in 1993, Challenger 2 started production by July the next year. Meaning, there is not much time until the design is absolutly locked. But these figures are repeated in July 1992
(here it can be understood that M1A1 listed is the Heavy Common version, having the same HAP-2 package as M1A2)
Further, that stretch capability given to Cr2 reqs (600mm instead of 500mm) was projected to be able to be produced no earlier than 1996, that is after Cr2 was rolling off the lines which discards the possibility.
again what document is this?
if its the swedish trials that get flaunted theyre well renowned for being innacurate…
How is it? CR2 rolled off the lines in 98 not 96…
Know what, im done here, im nto spending my life arguing ona forum anymore.
1 Like
You can see the name of the documents in the upper right corner of the page. I´m not posting the full doc as I don´t have it and last I heard the owner had to invest quite a bit to get access.
No, Swedish sources aren´t “renowned for being innacurate” rather they are highly technical and require some sophistication when it comes to interpreting what is stated in them. Sophistication that most tank fanboys usually lack.
Lastly, Cr2 production started in 1993 but was not accepted into service until 1998 because reliability issues. Its protection requirements (SRL4026) had been set in 1988.
isnt 650 for abrams Swedish trial number?
if its from Swedish sources then they stated that the domesticate version of the A2 has substaintially better protection compare to the export version
substaintially meant more than 20%, its not even 10% better ingame
1 Like
No, the export armor package trialed there scored 600. Which corresponds to the number given in British sources to HAP-1, somewhat inferior to contemporary HAP-2 (650mm). Statistically its highly likely HAP-3 reaches 700mm.
A little buff would change everything, its missing a lot of things that would make them just as good (Not in terms of armor, but survivability) as Russian MBT’s, its missing spall liners, turret basket shield, and the whole turret ring is incorrectly modeled.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9pd3QSYFMjsV
1 Like
i didnt even know it was TEN THOUSAND
Yeah this is news to me as well haha
