Namer armor

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
222

How is that an insult? Man you’re just reaching for things here xD

Highest in years doesn’t mean it’s adequate.

Bundeswehr ‘underequipped for NATO misson’ – DW – 02/19/2018

Slight budget increases, while useful, do not fix the problem outright.

How is 2018 relevant to now? My sources are dated to 2021/22 (as I’ve showed, scroll) and all of them show 70%+

As for the rest of your sources:

  • ua.defence is not reliable when BMVG’s own data contradicts it

image

The rest is really more of the same to be honest and they’re just repeating what the first souce has already stated. None of them seem to account for the fact the tanks have to be pulled from active service for maintenence & upgrades either (2023 - > 2025 is when over 100+ tanks have been scheduled for upgrades to 2A6MA3 variant).

On top of that, the article they’re quoting (Spiegel or Bild) isn’t available anymore, so we can’t even verify if they translated what had been said there properly.

Like I said, I’m not that well versed and would love to learn more, however, you seem more interested in trying to belittle me than explain things.

If you’re not well versed, why are you making claims that you aren’t capable of backing up when questioned? You haven’t been asking questions here either (as far as I can see…), you’ve been making statements that you yourself are treating more like facts.

You’re entire point is that Germany is a Military Superpower in Europe, but that isn’t the case.

Right, can you show me where I’ve made a statement like that?

Reactive Armor. If it isn’t an active armor like ERA or SLERA, then it’s NERA.

No, it means that the armour itself doesn’t have a way to generate energy like armours with explosives in them, it however can absorb and use the gained energy against the incoming threat. That’s the principle behind NERA, an elastomer absorbs energy, buckles & “moves around” it put as much material in front of the CE/KE as possible, hence why “more energetic”, but a more accurate term here would be “more reactive to energy” so that’s on me.

This is untrue. You may have given some statements, but your tone has been rude overall, and you’ve made several attacks on my character.

So we’re back to making things up about me not being respectful? Alright.

Untrue, and I’m not sure where you’ve seen me insult you.

I never named myself (and btw, I said insulting the intelligence!), but if you’re so interested and forgetful of your own words:

You’ve done nothing to add to this conversation other than stroking the Ego of someone who has no intention to construct a positive Dialogue.

Tell me with a straight face that the Namer, which weighs 60 tons, cannot stop a WW2 Bazooka on the side.

This has nothing to do with that. It’s whether or not the Bundeswehr is as “Super” as you people seem to believe, which isn’t the case.

Constantly insulting me is not “keeping me accountable”.

You’re entire point is that Germany is a Military Superpower in Europe, but that isn’t the case.

I’ve linked several sources, of which there are more.

None of them hold any water in the face of BMVG which I’ve called upon as a source already:

image

223

I never made any 100 percent claims. I simply said SLERA was likely more impressive due to the way its constructed. Yes, I was in-fact misinformed about D-Tech. I had been led to believe it was the external applique armor on the 2A7 and not internal. Despite that, I still don’t see how D-Tech would be a better armor when compared to SLERA since it’s a combination of NERA and ERA. You get both the passive protection of NERA and the aggressive reaction of ERA. The Block of SLERA is also larger and heavier. The Leopard 2 weighs 65 tons roughly versus the Merkava 4M’s weight of 80 tons.

SLERA
SLERA2007×1279 494 KB

I would like to restate that I don’t believe German Armor is bad, but rather than the Leopards themselves have a hard time staying running due to maintenance issues. However, that doesn’t necessarily extend to 2024. My point previously, if you look back, is that the Bundeswehr had neglected their military for a long time, which significantly effects modernization efforts.

You have been constantly saying that Germany has better Readiness rates than even the US. If that isn’t what you mean, then it certainly came off that way.

Yes, I did get slightly annoyed when I was told I was being put in my “place” when I’d done nothing to deserve such disrespect.

However, the Namer one is a given and I mean it. You cannot honestly tell me a vehicle weighing 60 tons has no armor when the vehicle was specifically designed to, at the very least, withstand hits on the side from warheads comparable to the RPG-29.

I cannot read German that well and rely on translations, which can be flawed.

Since this is getting out of hand, I would really prefer if we returned this discussion to Israeli armor.

I made a slip-up about D-Tech and will acknowledge that, however, that’s all that matters here. The rest of the discussion is pointless and does not add to the Discussion above.

1 Like
224

This again, sorry for saying this but, is an unsupported view. To make this easier to comprehend, SLERA during testing managed to decrease the perforation of an M322 by about ~47%, which when translated to numbers is about ~280mm, on the other than the wedges (which are a part of D-technology as a whole), had managed to increase the relative armour amount of the Leopard 2s turret by ~320mm (or ~40%). Those two armours are around 10 years apart in terms of development, yet their performance in actual numbers is quite comparable - so I personally, do not see why the former should or would be “better” as you have stated here:

Then don’t comment on a forum related the incorrect armor values for Israeli vehicles about “how I’m getting owned” when all I did was state SLERA is underperforming and should be better than the Leopard’s armor.

The Leopard 2 weighs 65 tons roughly versus the Merkava 4M’s weight of 80 tons.

This is due to armour density that anything else. Most of the Leopard 2s armour is heavily concentrated at the front, Merkava spreads its armour more evenly and armour the sides to a roughly the same level as the front. That’s not a bad thing per se, but it heavily limits how well armoured the front can be in comparison to say, the Leopard 2, whose frontal armour is much thicker & likely heavier.

However, that doesn’t necessarily extend to 2024. My point previously, if you look back, is that the Bundeswehr had neglected their military for a long time, which significantly effects modernization efforts.

Yes, and as I’ve stated before:

Bundeswehr’s own data from years 2021 & 2022, what are you using, then? Because to say that most of their tanks aren’t even combat ready would require us to go back to the period between 2013 and 2015, which checks calender was a decade ago.

Granted, 2018 was a particularly bad year for the BW.

You have been constantly saying that Germany has better Readiness rates than even the US. If that isn’t what you mean, then it certainly came off that way.

They have achieved better rates in the recent years (in fact US rates for the F-35A have fallen, per GAO 2023 they’re below 65% now), yes:

image

For comparison, the Luftwaffe:

EUROFIGHTER in diesem Zeitraum halbiert. Die vorgesehenen Flugstundenziele der Luftwaffe konnten daher nicht vollständig erreicht werden. Die Luftwaffe arbeitet aber mit Nachdruck daran, die ursprüngliche Solllinie wieder zu erreichen. Gute Klarstandsraten beim EUROFIGHTER von im Wochenschnitt teils über 80 Prozent tragen dazu bei.

I haven’t been able to find individual rates for the Tornado or A-400M, but due to BMVG stating that the main & secondary systems have achieved 70 - 80%+ readiness rates, we can speculate that both of them contributed to such a high number. The average for USAF on the other hand would be sub-70%. Admittadely, they have a lot more aircraft to upkeep, but for the sake of the argument we’re having this can be ignored.

Since this is getting out of hand, I would really prefer if we returned this discussion to Israeli armor.

Fair.

225

SLERA has a chemical bias, but I’d genuinely like to see where you got this information. It’s hard to find much about anything. Despite the Chemical Bias though, it does still stop a lot of Kinetic penetration.

That is true, yes. However, Gaijin has improperly modeled the Merkava’s weight and armor in-game. There’s a bug report that’s been acknowledged for roughly 10 months now about this.

I don’t doubt that the Leopard has a stronger turret face, but I still believe the Merkava should have around 700mm KE on the turret face.

That of course also means the Leopard’s turret face should be buffed as well.

If Gaijin would simply increase the max BR of Ground vehicles to a minimum of 13.0, we could fix a lot of the issues plaguing top tier.

Might have something to do with the sheer numbers of US Aircraft and where they’re stationed compared to raw readiness rates. It’d be a bit short sighted to directly compare the two without acknowledging how vast the US Air Force is compared to the Luftwaffe.

TLDR: Gaijin needs to decompress top tier BADLY, properly armor modern Main Battle Tanks, fix known/ignored bugs with vehicles, and improve/enlarge maps at higher tiers.

I mean, seriously, Gaijin has known that the Merkava is 80 tons for almost 3 years (yet it remains 65 tons) and that the armor modifiers, which are worse than rubber and RHA on average, are wrong.

1 Like
226

Would take too long to explain this so tl;dr

Leopard 2 TVM in Sweden had been equipped with C-technology armour which resulted in a ~550mm KE turret front, when the D-technology applique had been applied the protection increased to ~865mm KE (~320mm KE)

For a more in depth explanation see this:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/oMqKiGrKQSpU

For SLERA i’ve this:

227

could u at least try to use reliable sources and not some indian nobody website, the others arent better either

228

That SLERA image looks like a side plate ngl

229

We’re past that.

And I was showing where I got my information from, not what’s the absolute facts. Hence why I said I was misinformed. Read for a bit.

230

did you look at the wall of text you are posting

if you expect me to read trough all your paragraphs your are wholeheartly mistaken

231

If you cannot read the entire threat, don’t comment.

233

You’re heating a fire that has been put out. You are not needed here and are only causing drama. If you cannot read the entire thread for context, do not comment.

235

Classic gaijin
image

1 Like
236

What an outstanding individual. I’ll be waiting to see how many internet points you rack up for disrupting a genuine discussion :D

plan gif marketing strategy

237

in the first place, you are completly off topic here. You are discussing the leopard in the namer thread

238

Gaijin trying to not give only 3 nations usable top tier tanks Challenge Impossible

2 Likes
239

It’s my thread, for one. Secondly, talking about how the Leopard’s armor compares to the Merkava and Namer is completely Relevant.

240

you are derailing it in the same sense how the russians try to derail eurofighter threads and try to make it about their stuff
just no clue why you do that to your own thread

241

Look in a mirror and politely walk out of this thread :D

242

just saying how it is

243

Everything in the Namer and Merkava mk.4 family uses self limiting explosive reactive armor (SLERA) which it lacks in game. Overall the Namer and Merkava mk.4 should be on the same level as protection as the modern Russian MBTs, but I’ll never be able to prove it in a way that’ll satisfy their arbitrary historical report procedure.

If you guys want you can at least bump this one to get the Merkava mk.4s armour renamed to SLERA on the X-ray
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LIdizwh2nDJ6

1 Like