it says it has NERA on it
Gotcha, fine. My understanding is that for the time being the Chally Thread agrees it is in fact ASPRO-HMT, through the use of visual aids and some academic/book sources.
That said, Gaijin seems to think the ~40mm “Aluminium” plate behind it has to be there to achieve that value/standard of protection, which seems illogical given the various other platforms using ASPRO-HMT don’t necessarily have that backing plate.
It’s also disputed on whether that plate is even Aluminium, but that’s a separate issue.
1 Like
Yes?
and maybe ERA the rafel stuff is era
So you’re saying you dispute STANAG classifications?
You need to work on your comprehension. I said that currently the ERA in game does not provide level 5 protection, unless you also factor in the plate it is on. That is underperforming, because the ERA on it’s own should be stopping a 25mm apfsds @ 30 degrees, and it doesn’t.
1 Like
No? Where did you get that?
I’m saying that it is level 5. Simple as.
And I’ve said multiple times that I’m not here to dispute the protection of the package. Can you not read?
If it’s that much of an issue to you, open a complaint. Nobody has reported on the protection of the Challenger’s kit.
What
4 Likes
Nobody has gone to /issues with a claim that ASPRO-HMT is not given the protection it should have.
“it’s one of the soundest systems.”
lololol
Gonna dispute this, or at least quote someone else disputing this:
From Legwolf’s post linked here - Challenger 2 Blog inaccuracies
ISSUE: Blog claims the current side protection does not contradict documents in my report (KE)
ASPRO-HMT is rated to STANAG 5 Protection on Rafaels own brochure and data sheet, and as such should be able to defeat any threat up to 25MM Autocannon APFSDS at 500 meters.
The requirements set out in STANAG 4569, state that it must defeat the 25MM APFSDS from a frontal arc to centerline of 30 degrees plus or minus. This means the projectile can be hitting the strike face of the brick anywhere between -30 degrees offset to 0 degrees (head on) to +30 degrees offset and any impact angle in that reverse cone and be unable to penetrate.
The best analogue for 0 degrees 25MM APFSDS in game, is Italian IFV “Dardo” with its PMB-090 APFSDS which can penetrate 83mm of RHA. To defeat this and thus satisfy the STANAG 5 requirement, ASPRO-HMT must have at LEAST 84mm of KE protection. Furthermore, my previous report on the matter has employee TrickZZter show in the Protection Analysis screen that the game already satisfies the criteria, however this is a VERY common mistake.
(screenshot by TrickZZter in Protection Analysis, taken from my report)
The protection analysis tool in game factors in the hull, airgap, composite screen and other armor elements behind the block, that are not just the ASPRO-HMT block itself. The protection values I have mentioned are JUST the ASPRO-HMT bricks, nothing else, I make no mention of the composite screen behind the bricks, the baseplate, hull or any other elements contributing to the STANAG rating of ASPRO-HMT, nor would I. The protection analysis tool will not accurately show the protection provided by a single, lone block. The blog itself also relies on this as proof it currently meets STANAG 5 requirements in game, which it absolutely does not.
TL:DR -
A singular block of ASPRO-HMT, regardless of any other factors, should stop a round with 84mm of KE penetration regardless of angle at 500m, without the assistance of any part of the armour. Here, it can only be done with the assistance of the backing that the ASPRO pack is applied to (which is not considered as part of the ASPRO HMT pack, but merely a means of attaching it to the Tank whilst also conveniently providing a small boost in protection) and also the tank’s side armour, or at an extreme angle, in the region of approximately 60 degrees from the normal.
12 Likes
You done stonewalling here as well, Arctic boyo?
Brava, Firestarter, good info out of Legwolf.
3 Likes
What?
The moderators say they don’t disclose sources because other games might copy, but there’s no competitor to War Thunder, so why not share the sources? And even if there is, War Thunder is very advanced; only a powerhouse like Rockstar could surpass War Thunder, but their focus is on a different branch, AAA games…
1 Like
That’s why you play air instead. ;)
Though it’s still semi-easy to deal with Germany, Sweden, and T-90M at top BR ground.
@_Lalo_Salamanca
They’ve never stated that.
Gaijin won’t because the expense added to filter sources & maintain a publicly accessible database would be too much.
THAT is what they said, which is factual.
Also if you think Rockstar is a powerhouse you don’t play games that often.
1 Like
I’m sure you haven’t even played Chinese tanks in this game before，You haven’t even played 11.7, and the Swedish 122 series and German Leopard 2A7 are the strongest tanks in the current version, yet you complain with your brainwashed remarks from NATO media。Now Abrams has gained 5 seconds of loading time, which is much better than the 99A in terms of experience alone, but unfortunately, American players are all noobs like you
Get aload of this guy
8 Likes
It’s not impossible. It’s just so obviously unfair. shrug The ahistorical imbalance of MBT’s is just a piece of the pie. But it’s the obvious perniciousness behind it that makes it so unpalatable.
1 Like
Tell me you are uneducated without telling me you are uneducated.
4 Likes
A sound system is impossible in the current information environment.
1 Like
Hate to be that guy but despite literally making the greatest plane in the world our “NATO media” has absolutely shit on the F-35. The media has garnered such hatred that it has actively pushed one of the most mid ground attack planes in the A-10 to such prominence at the expense of planes like the F-35. Also the media has made repeated attempts to discredit numerous vehicles including the Bradley, which just went super well for a Russian T-90 that fought it and by that I mean the Bradley absolutely dominated the T-90.