You forgot about AAI X-rod SACLOS (top)(the other is TERM X-rod by Hercules, which can be fired with the help of MTAS or just in Bulldog mode)
There are also enough 140, 130, and 152mm tanks, we should see one of the CATTB or thumpers in the research tree eventually, which fight the Obj 477 and one of the Leopard 2 140s
Can anyone explain a few things to me?
Why are the composite skirt elements only as effectives as straight RHA, when it supposed to be similar in composition to the other Special Armor arrays.
There is an additional amour panel behind the composite skirt plate that doubles the thickness, which is what gives the observed improvement;
~145 =>270, which is short of the ~290 The doubled amour thickness would imply vs CE
should be 65mm Composite+30mm Applique RHA +27.6 basic RHA+ ~400mm air, as can be seen with the external amour off in the viewer, and the above cross-section.
Worse is that it does practically less than anything against KE threats considering 87~60mm effective isn’t great, for something that is effectively 122.6~92.6mm (65(+30)+27.6).
And how they are supposedly greater than 10x the thickness(6.35 vs 65mm) of the regular RHA plates used in the skirt elsewhere when on the model the thickness barely changes.
Well most likely it was done as a balancing measure when the tank was added and they have balanced all the other vehicles around this since then so they don’t want to have to rebalance to give it more side armor yet. Also it makes it vulnerable to IFV’s another gameplay concession.
The Abrams side hull armor is well known 350 KE and 750 CE at 25 degrees.
haven’t seen this posted here yet but I assume some of you would like this video about repairing/ the changing barrel process for the Australian Abram’s.
Great video, thanks for sharing.
Finding myself getting killed by BMPT 30mm APDS through the turret ring at least once almost every game now… if only they fixed the turret ring after two years so that couldn’t happen (but that would hurt Gaijin’s best selling premium)
Is there a bug report on this?
The only way to get the turret gap corrected would be to go and measure it, which really isn’t a possibility.
Not talking about the turret gap. The turret gap is correct, and actually, there is a way to measure it. There is an M1A1 at the American heritage museum 25 minutes away from me. But regardless, there’s nothing wrong with the turret gap. The turret ring thickness is wrong.
Not from me, it might exist but I don’t think so.
Well, it might be worthy of putting one together if it can be proven Gaijin’s interpretation is incorrect. I’m not sure I understand the issue enough to make an indisputable bug report. I’d have to look into it more. What it really might come down to is Gaijin’s material multipliers, which I haven’t looked at in a while.
The document in question is
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf
The issue is
Composite Skirt are erroneously configured as they probably don’t take the embedded RHA/HHA strike plate into account.
The main thrust should be that by inspection of the attached excerpt the composite skirts are improperly configured as there are currently modeled as if they were composites all the way though their thickness.
By inspection of the plan view provided on [PDF page #17], and cross referencing the Key on page #16 there is an (assumed to be RHA, may be HHA so has either a 1.1 or 1.0 RHAe) strike plate that takes up ~half the thickness (65/2 = 32.5mm ) of the structure, backed onto by a “tri-plate element”, similar in composition to others found in the Hull, Mantlet and (implied) Turret face.
As such the side protection is underperforming in both KE and CE protection effectively being less efficient that the same thickness of RHA as currently modeled.
Basically the protection offered by the Side of the Hull against M774 is only ~87mm when it is as evidently comprised of the Skirt(65mm), add on block armor (30mm) and then the underlying hull(27.6mm)
If you assume that the non skirt armor is properly functional it should comprise 57.6mm RHAe of protection, so subtracting that value from the effective protection leaves ~30mm to be provided by the 65mm thick skirt, assuming that it was properly modeled with the RHA/HHA strike plate which comprises approximately half its thickness it’s still providing a RHAe value of less than one(30/32.5 ~= 0.92, if strike plate is modeled. otherwise 30/65 = 0.46 RHAe), as if the composite layer(s) have no effect on the penetrator at all, which is questionable.
Also as Burlington is derived from Chobham, the Tri-Element plate itself is likely also comprised of a Plastic-Steel-Plastic composite panel, as shown below, so should additionally contribute to the effective thickness, and with a plastic Backing layer not produce spalling by itself.
I’d need to track down the attributable source but additionally there is;
Further the Swedish trials documents list protection values for the side of the Hull which are much higher.
So effectively the skirts should be able to stop in the ballpark of a 30mm auto cannon from the side skirt from what I’m seeing, that’s an interesting piece of info
Only the composite sections, though I also doubt that the regular skirts are only 6.35mm thick too, but I’ve got no evidence.
Excellent job, this should be suitable for a bug report. T I understand what you mean about the side skirts now. Half RHA rather than full special armor, therefore it is underperforming due to the multipliers. Makes sense.
The Swedish armor trials have previously been used by Gaijin as evidence, so that is a good source. The evaluation confuses me though, as with the in game engine I don’t think it is possible to achieve this protection value. I am not sure how they calculated these protection values. I feel as though the protection values described are partially influenced by the track, wheel, and suspension structure, which currently in game are extremely lacking in realistic protection performance, mostly because it pisses players off and makes them complain when their shells are stopped by tracks and road wheels. Tracks and road wheels, for almost a century now, have been proven to contribute to a significant amount of side protection to armored vehicles, especially today with much larger tanks in service. Road wheels are totally solid steel and they are also cylindrical… but in game, they are modeled as a flat value. Penetrating a road wheel at that angle would offer a lot of protection, but in game it is represented the same as penetrating it at the thinnest part.
The side skirt composition-- definitely make a bug report. That will go through.
@Imaflyingturkey, Here is list of credible issues/reports not in the list.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/b4ogshUDi1jN
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/76zbjPwex0eu
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/iRfZYKuQlsjc
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zAnRmjxAEQxo
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OcMYQ2z1zDlN
–(@tripod2008, the Swedish armor trials have already been referenced in the report above but there is no report on the side skirt composition. I would move forward with that)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dfLwUmv0nwlt
(this report amends miscalculations in UFP and fuel cell bulkhead reports)
Feel free as it would be a while for me to do, as I’m going to be fairly busy for a week or two.
Another Report I could think of would be a suggestion to replace the commander’s Pintle / CROWS Caliber .50 with a Mk 19 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher. To up penetration from 3/4" with M903 (.50 SLAP) to ~3" with 40mm HV M430A1 and make it an actual threat against light vehicles.
Necrons’s report got accepted but ended up being forwarded as a suggestion. I wouldn’t expect Gaijin to act on the report any time soon.
I just zipped up a quick report. We’ll see if they want more than one source cited- I don’t see why it would be a problem though, this is a source already known and used by Gaijin. I’ll make a longer and more in-depth one if it is a problem.
Report: Community Bug Reporting System
