FV510 Warrior IFV - Technical Data and Discussion

it doesn’t calculate it, it accounts for it.
the m is a modifier to the angles resulting value.
i don’t think i can explain it any better than this.

For this to make sense, each cos(a) would have to introduce a new level of deviation from the normal, and I don’t see how it can or why Odermatt would want it that way when, as you said so yourself, this will differ from projectile to projectile.

No hard feelings, but I think you’re reaching for things that aren’t there, overly complicating things. IMO, their graphics is the nail in the coffin for this, if they had included angular deviation into the equation, they would have showed it in the graphical represenation as well, but they hadn’t.

In fact, Ockham’s razor is perfect here.

it does since it’s an exponent. its not a flat multiplier. the resulting cos value gets affected percentualy differently depending on size of the angle. i.e the bigger the angle the bigger effect the exponent m will have on the resulting number.

i mean, i could be, i’m not 100% on this. but its not like i’m grabbing things out of thin air. I absolutely could be affected by confirmation bias, but i don’t think i am.

the graphic is just a reference, its not the formula. there is no need to write out the coefficients that are later introduced as they are constants and not affected by real world measurements. That graphic also lacks the material coefficients and the constants used to augment the length/diameter ratio before using hyperbolic tangent.

The same can be applied to the flat angle modifier that we’ve talked about…

At this point lets just agree to disagree.

it can’t though. a flat angle modifier is a multiplier, its linear.
an exponent isn’t linear.

It’s derived from the equation; cos(x)*m - > coefficient/modifier required for the calculator to properly handle estimations at angles >0.

In fact, what we get from this is a flat modifier (which is flat only for the given angle, not that the growth will be linear!), which grows exponentially with each new introduced angle…

Like I said before, lets agree to disagree, I think you’re reaching for things that aren’t there, and if there’s anyone who can clear this up really is Mr. Odermatt himself. His mail should be on the calculator’s website if you want clarification.

well yes. so then the same can’t be applied as the multiplier a result and not the input value.

alrighty then.

what has everyone even been arguing about? all ive gotten is that someone doesn’t like people using Line Of Sight thickness because… reasons?

I gave up trying to figure that out lmao

sounds like there just being pedantic for no reason, if they do have one i would like them to explain it in a simple manor, as they should be able to if they truly grasp what the fck they are on about.

100% the last couple of days of this thread has just confused me lmao

Does anybody have any picture of the warrior with a camo net? I can only find one and it is on the CSP at an expo.

Spoiler

I believe the netting is barracuda, also i have yet to see another pic lf it on outside this expo

The nets are the same as on the ajax. I don’t think service warriors ever received the nets sadly :(

Nah, never seemed to be a staple for the warrior sadly… only a recent addition tbh… and with the replacement of the Warrior with the Boxer I doubt we’d even get it now…

Yeah Warriors never recieved the netting in service, if you look at the most recent video from the Army of the training in poland the warriors are still rocking no camo netting and just odd bits of bushes/trees from the local AO.

Cos theres no real point when its just gonna be dumped for the boxers in a couple years

Eh boxer won’t enter service for a couple of years, on top of that the MOD have not shared any plans to get a boxer variant with the same capability as warrior for the IFV role. However there are a few option out there with the CT40 so I doubt there will be much of an issue procuring one, but you never know with the MOD.

Considering the French made a remote CTA turret probs will just make a mission module hopefully

Yeah most likely that’s what we will get, the boxer, patria and VBCI are all the same thing effectively