Sombralix used the same method, so IDK.
1 Like
2A4’s turret is well over 600mm’s thick. meaning it has an overall efficiency of about 0.5
4 Likes
Sort-of.
It’s also mostly air & composite plates, hence NERA classification.
Whereas the Soviet hull is mostly steel.
And all of them provide more flat protection than their calculated thickness based on the wiki data.
1 Like
none of them do, only russian armour does(which it shouldnt)
1 Like
I calculated based on the 0.1 x NERA thickness for the NATO ones. NERA thickness isn’t the thickness of the plates either, it’s the air-plate combination thickness we’re told.
The calculated number is significantly less than the protection it offers.
Wiki might be out of date or we’re missing something.
And the effective thickness should be higher than the thickness flat cause of multiple material-gapped plate properties.
Only as supplementary at best and definitely not as primary data for his arguments.
Surely you read his initial post and the ones after that contained paragraphs of data both in picture and typed form? The man has provided a treasure chest of information, surely you didn’t just skip it?
We always include air for armour, for both russia where it is specified and nato where it is nera.
1 Like
It’d be nice if we knew how much air to plate ratio was, and what plate hardness they chose.
this is all simplified through use of a KE modifier
iirc thats one of the (many) modelling advantages for the Russian tanks. instead of being modelled as a single “composite array” with a set modifier defined by gaijin, the UFP on Russian tanks is modelled as a multi plate system with each plate getting a positive modifier to account for the filler layers between them, which is how the Russian UFP end up with a positive KE modifier on their composite UFP while all NATO composites end up with a negative modifier.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that due to modelling, having more individual armor entities for a shell to go through leads to more chances of the armor “eating” the shell.
As with many things in this game, gaijins modelling “choices” disadvantage western tech and substantially buffs Russian tech, such as things like not modelling regenerative steering leading to NATO tanks being substantially less nimble than they should be, armor shenanigans, etc…
6 Likes
Leopard 2
Turret Composite is 750mm thick, from the front the angle is 30-35 degrees giving 860mm LOS
Hull composite is 750mm thick
2 Likes
Except it’s not actually 750mm thick.
Cause there’s a ton of air between all the plates.
1 Like
Just like on russian tanks… thats the whole point of composite KE modifiers.
3 Likes
You’re missing the point I think, Sombralix is talking about how the effective protection of the T72B is far more than 530mm. The 530mm figure given in documentation means that a KE penetrator needs to get through 530mm LOS of RHA at 68 degrees in order to penetrate the T72B. It does not mean that a longrod monobloc KEP needs 530mm flat penetration to go through, as that would require the round has far more than 600mm of LOS penetration at 68 degrees.
We know it’s this way round for a few reasons:
- Protection figures never mention a specific round, different KEP designs behave differently at angles and a flat penetration figure would be useless without specification of the round it is against. Furthermore, the Soviets hadn’t fielded a monobloc longrod penetrator yet so it makes no sense they’d use the flat penetration of one as the reference
- Conversely, penetration figures are always given in LOS thickness. L23A1 is stated as having 490mm pen in documentation but this is the LOS penetration at 68 degrees. The same is the case with L26 documentation as well as 3BM59/60
So with this we know that a 530mm vs KE figure should equate to:
530*cos(68) = 198.5mm at 68 degrees. Any KE shell that can go through more than 198mm normal thickness (aka if the angle was 0) of armor at 68 degrees has 530mm LOS penetration at 68 degrees and should go through the T72B. In game shells with 220mm or more at 68 degrees go through, meaning the T72B’s armor is actually 590mm RHAe LOS instead.
The tank is overperforming and OP is correct, it’s a universal problem with the way Gaijin has done tank protection that has disproportionately benefitted USSR top tier. Haven’t exactly explained this brilliantly and have skimmed the thread a bit but oh well.
8 Likes
Except I showed an image of the T-72B being 514mm equivalent with the round going through ERA.
Flat equivalent pen cannot be used to prove angular penetration equivalent.
How is the tank overperforming & OP if the armor is only 514mm effective firing through Contact 1 LOS 65 degrees?
Fun fact, it’s ~530mm equivalent when firing avoiding ERA LOS 68 degrees.
Image of that BTW:
Where have you shown this. It’s objectively incorrect considering when firing into the UFP at 0 degree angle you get a 220mm value vs KE, which is 590mm LOS equivalent.
Flat penetration is entirely useable to get angled LOS effective thickness if you’re looking at a 0 degree impact angle in the protection analysis.
1 Like
Earlier in the thread, and the ~530mm one just now.
The key word you said: 0 degrees.
The zero degree angle of armor equivalent cannot be used to prove the angular armor thickness nor equivalent.
And that’s what we’ve proved here.
Edit:
I have a proof for something: Earlier I posted Ariete, 142mm equivalent with 114mm of equated armor zero degrees.
At 64 degrees, the penetration equivalent is 271, or 271*cos(64)=118.
Abrams: 342 eqiv @ 0deg.
608*cos(59)=313.
Soviet’s aren’t the only ones with 0 degree armor having a higher number than angled penetration multiplied by cosine.
1 Like
Abrams: 342 eqiv @ 0deg.
608*cos(59)=313.
As far as I can see, you have no idea what you’re talking about. @Sombralix explained the problem very well, and @UKoctane basically did a ELI5 for you… yet you’re still missing the point?
To make it as simple as it is humanly possible; T-72B was nearly penetrated by 3BM-32 Vant in real life, that round is around the performence level of DM23 used by the Leopard 2A4 but for some reason projectiles such as DM33 and M900 which are, on average ~20% more powerful cannot defeat the armour of this tank?
What is your “calculation” even meant to represent exactly? The hull? The turret? The turret sides?
All your examples scream of “I talk a lot without saying anything”.
I’ll just wait and see what you make out of it.
8 Likes