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
Pretty sure the underlying structure(hull side) is 27.6mm in game, not 30 as stated in the report, its the up armor block that is 30mm so the numbers are off slightly.
The hull side is 30mm in the frontal half of the vehicle and 27.6mm in the rear half of the vehicle, so the 30mm hull side applies to this situation. The additional armor is also 30mm as you said
Might be worth it to double check that since it might also contribute.
Yeah I’m logged on right now we’re all set :)
“The source do not contradict to in-game model.”
Literally what… these managers do NOT read these bug reports…
I also had one label “not a bug” on one where I showed that an aircraft armament loadout had weapons clipping through each other
