Well, one of the characteristics of composite armor is that it must be strong and not so heavy (relative to conventional armor from the mid-20th century).
Judging by the thickness of the door, it is definitely composite armor.
Namer’s Rear Door is not 30mm thick. Visually Identifiable. // Gaijin.net // Issues
I’ve made a bug report on the Namer’s Door.
3 Likes
its because they added all that armor in the hull and side but gaijin wont add it because ‘balance’ as they say
Then the game should stop being called “Realistic”.
3 Likes
Yeah, I pointed out that it’s hollow, which is obviously incorrect.
1 Like
i would be happy if they just copy the same stats as from merkava 4, i dont want more
I want more because the Merkava is paper. If this game is to be called “Realistic”, this APC should be the most protected vehicle in the game.
8 Likes
Both should be extremely well protected anyway…
With modifiers similar to CR2’s, Merkava’s turret cheeks would be nearly immune, and its hull would uffer more than 500mm KE (not counting powerplant and bulkhead).
Right now it just has a lower multiplier than most composites ingame. barely on par with M1’s.
3 Likes
They should also buff Composite “Screens” on the Merkava Series.
I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t look like a Composite “Screen”
7 Likes
Does someone has the book Namer Heavy IFV. Namer IFV in IDF Service from Mass, Michael/O’Brien, Adam?
Oh, it’s a composite screen…
The issue is composite screens are heavy multi-layered armor modules specifically designed to withstand contemporary threats, while, in Gaijin’s eyes, they seem to be hollow tinfoil cases xD
Those 95mm thick side skirts, for example, only provide 23mm against KE in War Thunder.
That means those side skirts are supposedly made of something 0.24 times as strong as RHA.
For reference, that’s as strong as rubber-fabric ingame.
And just like that… most if not all composite screens, and many composite modules.
7 Likes
as my grandfather said, things from before were of better quality. Especially if it is the always reliable siberian wood.
5 Likes
All of the armor behind the 10mm plate is completely missing thats why it can probably be overpressure
5 Likes
Imagine the faces of the Israeli engineers when they found out that they spent millions of dollars when they could have used Russian wood in their armor…
11 Likes
Well, there are many faults with this vehicle’s modelling, but this is not one of them: there’s a fuel tank and power system in there.
This whole part is external, hence the “external fuel tanks”. Watch as the back and glacis side armor converge:
Basically, the 10mm cover is just an external sponson and it has no impact on survivability.
As far as I can see, the shapes and modelling is correct for the most part; the main issue is how underestimated the resistance of the composite materials is. Same issue as with Merkava.
2 Likes
Sometimes I wish I could just call up the IDF and ask them for a tour of these vehicles lmao
I hate how badly they’re represented.
4 Likes
So many inaccuracies, most of them minor, some of them annoying such as side-armor for Namer.
If it was 300mm thick it would be extremely heavy for a hatch, it must definitely be hollow.
I never said it was 300 mm. What I can assure you is that it’s not 30 mm.
On the other hand, it’s the most exposed part of the IFV and it’s not a single piece of metal either. It’s probably composite and spaced armor. Anyway, in the game, it’s modeled as a 30 mm metal sheet.
Think about it, this IFV weighs over 60 tons and doesn’t have a turret… Do you think it’s not armored? Or does its weight come from the air between the thin metal plates?