Says who
Literally does not matter because a value is assigned when the shell strikes the back plate depending on the attack angle of the original hit
You think Gaijin is compounding errors when in fact the error is compounded by neither you nor OP knowing how composite armour arrays work in-game or IRL.
I tried to make it clear that although there should be some consideration of the sandwich effect for the armour, the game already replicates this, and still overperforms.
Compared to the effects of the steel-textolite-steel array, the textolite is 3.3x more effective individually… AND the entire array is 15% better… I just think this is strange.
It DOES matter. Gaijin should treat all nations equally - without giving certain materials used by certain countries some extra ‘help’ that ignores physics.
Let us say that Armour A is overperforming by 10%.
Then you stick that Armour A into a composite array with some additional materials (Armour B).
Armour A - B - A - B - A
If Armour A is overperforming by 10% - that is not just throwing the protection out by 10% - it is multiplied by the number of layers PRECISELY due to the interaction of the shell having to pass through the material each time. Effectively - the shell is having a harder time penning each time it has to ‘pass’ Armour A. If that material is borked - then the effect is in effect compounded.
Even if just a single calculation is made (e.g. just Armour A + B) you STILL have an error introduced.
In-game this is somewhat simplified compared to IRL. Either way - the frontal armour of certain RU tanks appears to be stronger than it should be if we use the same rules as applied for everyone else.
So… do you want to start again or do you want to just automatically say ‘hurr durr you no understand stronk Rasha Metal’?
Your choice. I’m freely giving you an opportunity here not to appear as a Muppet.
It was mainly for the combined effect of anti HEAT and anti Kinetic
They had to match in the middle somewhere and textolite was pretty much there, at least for the 1960s designers because going for all heat wouldve left it vulnerable to KE and all KE wouldve made it really heavy which they tried to avoid and so the textolite is a compromise to balance all factors for decent protection and such
But as its not reactive, dense material like tungsten wouldve not hugely been affected by a not so dense layer but it provides just enough to stop most 1960s rounds and all of them at range
but like you im no armour expert but i have read a lot
Seems appropriate
words
Quoting yourself doesn’t count as a source.
Come on, prove that different materials in succession make no difference in the final calculation for KE. The ‘only the final plate assigns a value’ is an old myth from Reddit a few years ago.
Im sorry but could you give your question again. Are you asking if adding different materials in succession in game makes a difference. Or are you asking in general?
If you mean in game, i think this can be disproven by the fact gaijin have denied adding the decapping effect of the Romas belt armour. This shows they try to avoid simulating the armours effect in its entirety, which can also be shown with nato tanks as they instead simply have “composite” in their armour which has a variable they change to match the protection figures they have on the tanks.
And if you think the decapping nature is only for ships, the panzer 4 skirts are a good example of spaced armour not providing as much protection as they probably should as irl they would have caused the rounds to tumble/decap/deform but in game the air has a simple ke/ce value of 0.001 or something.
So in game the increase in protection found from successive materials would be shown through a modifier rather than full on simulation.
If you meant IRL, then yes it would have an effect. Said effect could be good or bad as sometimes having just a hunk of metal is better than having many small layers, there are always trade offs.
The core issue is whether gaijin have modelled the frontal armour of T-80U correctly. Flame’s calculations appear to show that for a given thickness of textolite sandwiched between armour - there are discrepancies between the armour on the T-64A and T-64B for example - as well as some later models such as T-80U.
Despite the materials technically being the same (for which you’d expect the same modifier for X amount of material). In other words 10mm of Textolite appears to be simulated to be thicker or more effective depending on the tank it’s on. Which doesn’t make sense.
IF it is a bog standard modifier applied at the very last stage of pen calculation - it’ll be off as a result. IF it’s calculated in a very simplified manner while taking into account different layers ahead of the backing plate - then it’ll still be off. However WT does it’s maths on composites - if one of the inputs is inaccurate you’re going to end up with an inaccurate end result.
This all stemmed from the L27 debacle - a dart round EXPRESSLY stated to be able to defeat T-80U with K-5 at 2000m. That either means that L27 is underperforming. Or that T-80U armour is overperforming. Hence the interest into just how Gaijin get their figures for certain tyoes of Soviet/RU protection.
Then the particular interest into how many of the sums don’t add up when looked at more closely. The poster above I was responding to appeared to just go for the ‘nu uh - calculation not impacted by wrong modifiers’ which is, frankly (technical term) bollocks.
In answer to your question - it’s more a case of querying in-game how Gaijin choose to simulate composites and how they choose to calculate whatever modifiers they assign to a given material. A lack of transparency and consistency is an ongoing concern.
I think a good indicator is that in game the t series are some of the only tanks ive seen have rounds be defeated halfway through the armour array which may show that it is taking into account the multiple layers.