So why don’t you make a report? With the right documents on Duplet?
If the geometry of the block is similar performance should be fairly uniform since selected explosives selected needs to remain stable, and there aren’t that many options that improve performance without causing excessive shock sensitivity;
Most ERA is of “asymmetric sandwich” construction
They were made, but the developer has already accepted Duplet 2M as true characteristics and closes the report as insufficient data((
That is, completely denies the difference between Duplet and Duplet 2M, although we have official figures of 80-90% from the creators of Duplet and it does not matter for new shells or old ones. Because using the characteristics of other dynamic protection is even worse.
1 Like
What does this mean here? The developer says that you can’t set it up like this, so you can’t.
can I see the url?
What is the point of changing the current armor setting with some assumptions, which fits the maximum possible number of sources, to another setting with some assumptions, which fits a much smaller number of sources? Obviously, the first one will have more weight.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues
You can look for it yourself, I am not an information bureau.
1 Like
Because you can’t configure Abrams according to the T-80 brochure (I’m exaggerating, but the gist is the same)
1 Like
All I saw there were paint drawings, nothing more.
1 Like
I understood that since the booklet says 90%, it should be 90% of the DM53 released from the RH120 L55.
2 Likes
Is it any different in the game?
It’s another argument that could be produced to estimate specific Protection for a given design.
It would be used to permit effective comparison in relative performance on the basis of an energy disparity between tamper plates of two similar ERA products, as a higher generated impulse ( Tamper’s mass * velocity) would require more energy for the Penetrator to defeat, reducing penetration.
So by having a known reference plate’s performance e.g. Kontact-1 vs M774 provides say 200mm of protection at 60 degrees, the relative performance of Kontact-5 against M774 (or similar Design) could be estimated using accepted formula.
Similar to the way that the penetrative power of APFSDS is currently estimated though the use of a modified Lanz- Odermatt formula, a similar method could be introduced for ERA to avoid the need for exacting data, and get around conflicting sources.
I will ask again, how is this connected with the fact that for configuring Duplet they use Duplet 2M data, which differs in characteristics, when the developer states that it is impossible to configure one dynamic protection under the data of another manufacturer?
This would be useful but unfortunately the new ERA’s values are speculative as it has never been produced or tested. Thus, even ignoring the claimed weight reduction of the ERA, its values should not be used at all, let alone to model a different ERA which we already have data for.
Because obviously there is a lack of select data for some systems and so some method would be required to estimate and equivocate performance between two or more, and as methods do exist for this purpose they may be worth consideration to account for the lack of detail in some brochures.
We have official data for Duplet, what we are told that the graphs are based on data for old shells is also not supported by evidence, if I am not mistaken, this is proven only by comparing the figures again from the booklet for Duplet 2M, which has different characteristics and cannot serve as a reliable source in this matter.
And? It’s not like it needs that much actual data to work off. Nor would it be the only addition of untested systems to the game, especially if it’s just a change in the energetic material, not the geometry of the block itself.
If that were the case, why is there such contention over its use?
Btw, 5.3 kg reduced by 70% is 1.59 kg. If the weight reduction is being claimed in comparison to K1, the new tile would weigh around the same as ХСЧКВ-19A. 19A does not provide any major kinetic protection. Perhaps this new tile’s improved effectiveness over “domestically produces analogues” is being claimed in comparison to ХСЧКВ-19A and not ХСЧКВ-34, which is still much heavier than this new ERA and should be providing more protection.
Again, this is if we say that the weight reduction is in comparison to K1 and not ХСЧКВ-34
Because some people want to use the values for the new ERA which are worse than the actual values
If the Machine Translation has worked properly for this image;
Y-axis label is “Decrease (%) of effective penetration”
X-Axis is Threat type; “Unitary (HEAT) [e.g. AGM-114B], Tandem (HEAT) [AGM-114K], APFSDS [M774], EFP / SFF [TOW-2B]”
Not that the square brackets indicate what it was tested against, just an example of a common threat that it might face in game that use said damage model.
It’s interesting that it claims Relikt & Kontact-5, has (practically)no impact on EFPs, which is obvious that it does not align with in game modeling. Might be worth reporting, see where it goes.