There’s no point in trying to calculate the coefficients for individual armor components.
Combined armor is a complex thing, and each component influences the other.
If you calculate the relative resistance of steel/rubber and other components separately in NERA, you’ll get less than what they actually provide.
For example, have you ever wondered how the 100mm composite screen on the Leopard 2A7V UFP adds 200mm of armor?
A rough calculation would never give you 200mm.
there seems to be something else going on as with these modifiers you cant get up to 230mm
on the other hand on the oplot you actually can add up to the protection shown on the analysis
(60+50+15)1.2+300.5= 165
That’s you who barely opened the game apparently. That’s just a value change of the armor behind the ERA. In this game ERA has a direct fixed penetration cut value.
What’s your point? You still can’t use chemical protection values/studies against kinetic rounds, that’s just not how it works.
In 5 layers of steel, the same steel and textolite will have higher coefficients than in 3.
I’ve already explained this.
What nonsense you are talking.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/JpAck6iF9NwQ
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6nzgHa8iXCUB
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/aXFTmVSqezcA
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zQiz1AS2DLvR
Honestly, I think you should study the game a little before teaching it to anyone.
БПС - This is APFSDS (Бронебойный Подкалиберный Снаряд) in Russian.
I don’t know why they wrote cumulative next to that table so many times, but the coefficients for the БПС refer to the APFSDS, as I already confirmed
That would be ОБПС. While БПС means just a sub caliber AP shell, in rusian.
Not only that. БПС is equally valid, since this term is predominantly used to denote APFSDS in Soviet/Russian technical literature.
I don’t know why you are arguing with me, this is a book from 2006 and it is about combined tank armor. It refers to APFSDS.
Because its not 100mm… at 54 degrees the LOS thickness is 275mm. And i assume in the files it has a custom kinetic modifier.
yes, this happens on other russian tanks too. For example, the T-64B, which is RHa + textolite:
60RHa + 35 Txt + 30RHa + 35 Txt + 45 RHa, which should give you about 160mm. Yet it is 198mm in game…
cos(54 degree) - 0.587. LOS is 170mm
But the APFSDS also penetrates sloped armor better than straight armor.
You can’t simply calculate “LOS multiplied by a coefficient.”
By the way, the 2a7v’s faceplate is effective due to the barrier’s separation and (as far as I know) the fact that the barrier inside it is positioned at a different angle than the main armor. Changing the angle of penetration also hinders the APFSDS’s penetration.
By the way, I’ve said all this to point out that armor is a very complex thing, and you shouldn’t try to find some kind of modifier for the effectiveness of individual layers for modern armor.
They influence each other, and therefore we should stick to the integral coefficients.
? the LOS is 275mm. and yes APFSDS penetrates slopes better, so the effective thickness will be closer to 220mm. Still
It shouldn’t. I’ve already explained in detail that when your armor isn’t just a piece of steel, but a composite assembly, each component performs better.
If you take three 50mm steel sheets and weld them together, they’ll give you 150mm of armor. If you space them apart and fill the gaps with a different material (with a different density), you’ll get more than the 150mm armor resistance of that material.
Even if you simply separate these three steel plates with air, their resistance will exceed 150mm.
That is why the textolite is given a heuristic modifier to model the effect of seperation… the steel is still steel. This is the same for all other tanks in game. And the case on some russian mbt’s too.
LOS - the part thickness divided by the cosine of the angle. The cosine of an angle of 54 degrees is 0.587.
100/0.587 = 170, not 270.
That is my point… the 100mm is not the thickness… you cannot trust the first thing you see in wt damage models.
No. Combination armor is always more complex to configure than simply combining all the individual components.
Otherwise, it wouldn’t work in the game.
This is exactly how the game works. It just uses extra modifiers where needed
In this case, there may be a bug in the game. Either the 100mm figure is incorrect, or the part is actually too thick.
No, that’s not how it works. Armor coefficients in the game are cumulative. The effectiveness of a particular piece of composite armor takes into account the composition of the entire package.
I’m tired of explaining this.
My overall point being. Regardless of how you consider these composites to be modelled in game:
They still overperform… should be penetratable by M111 at approximately 1428m/s from a 1460m/s MV.
At 68 degrees, APFSDS penetrates armour 20% more efficiently, so the 405mm mentioned in the source is 330mm against long rods.
