4 Likes
On the topic of the armor of the Puma, (@Smin1080p_WT will be interesting for you as well);
First:
The armor in front of the powerpack should be significantly thicker (this photo is from the Puma prototype currently located at the Munster Panzer Museum, as such it’s missing the additional layers of the production vehicle):
Here’s a napkin calculation of armor density if it were built from pure RHA:
We know that Pumas armor, on top of the base hull is increased by 43 t - 31.45 t = 11.55t
The side armor is ~4.2m^2 on the right side and 450mm thick.
The side armor is ~5.0m^2 on the left side and 450mm thick.
The roof is ~10.1m^2 and mostly spaced / rubber armor.
The turret armor is a total of ~2m^2.So in total thats an area of 21.3m^2 where the protection is increased.
Assuming the armor is perfectly evenly distributed that would net us ~542kg / m^2.542kg / m^2 of pure steel (@ 7900 kg/m^3) would be equal to a 1m^2 steel plate with a thickness of 69mm.
The base armor is 320kg/m^2 = 40mm steel (required armor against 14.5 API).
So combined the Pumas all around avrg armor should be:40mm + 69mm = 109mm, if it would be build out of pure steel.
However, what needs to be kept in mind is that RHA is significantly less weight efficient than modern composites, and the Puma still took on additional ~11 tons in pure armor when going from Standard A to Standard C.
The protection of the hull’s side (at an angle of 0 degrees) should be (at the very least) ~110mm instead of the current ~70mm.
At the moment, the armor of the vehicle is nowhere near close enough to the estimated values, neither for the S0, nor for the VJTF.
Two:
This graphic is baased on this photo:
Amount of steel used in the construction of the upper plate is:
40 + 5 + 7 + 5 + 7 + 5 for a total of 69mm of RHA/high hardness steel, as such, the upper plate, when fired at from an AoA that is neutral to it, should be equal to 69mm RHA + (~6mm rubber * 0.3 KE) ~2mm of rubber, achieving ~71mm against KE projectiles. Does it though? Far from it:
It can only do 46mm against KE, i.e due to the combining (by Gaijin) of all of Puma’s armor layers into one to simplify the model, it has resulted in the protection being lower than its steel alone should offer (have any of you ever seen RHA that has a lower KE modifer than 1.01/1.1? I haven’t. Unless of course, Gaijin thinks that PSM/KMW used ductile steel in the construction process).
Now, at an angle, this 46mm turns into ~130mm RHAe against KE when the vehicle is shot at from the front, we can calculate the modifier that governs this: it’s 2.82608695652 (130/46)
If the upper plate had been performing as it’s supposed to (i.e ~71mm of KE at an AoA of 0), then the upper plate should offer protection of about ~200mm KE instead (71*2.82608695652).
edit: (not to mention, it is highly likely Puma’s armor follows the same philosophy as Leopard 2s wedge armor, so the first two layers are meant to break KE projectiles apart, with the rest being there to absorb the fragments and such, it is very possible that the KE protection should be higher than ~200mm RHAe, to what degree I can’t say, yet).
21 Likes
do a issue report but dont get your hopes up they have been denied with far more sources and calculations.
at this point I honestly dont think anything will happen to the Puma armor
3 Likes
Hopefully this helps in getting them to fix it but I kinda doubt it. Nice job either way though.
1 Like
But why is it not effective against IRCCM atgms?
Both , f you search with the wayback machine on the official Hensoldt site for MUSS (before it wws switched to MUSS 2.0) it is mentioned that it is effective against all wire-guided ATGMs currently in service (so most likely also jamresistent ones) and in a second source it is also explicitly mentioned that MUSS 1.0 is effective against “optically tracked wire-guided, jam resistant 2nd and 3rd generation (those guided by IR seeker) missiles” as well as laser guided atgms and laser range finders.
So why is it implemented in such a limited way, even though not a single vehicle on BR 10.0 and 10.7 uses atgms, which is jammable due to the current implementation and there are sources that indicate that the system can do more ?
8 Likes
2 Likes
have fun convincing Gaijin to not make something Israel made a piece of shit in-game.
The Spike, Merkava, Namer, and Sholef are all in the same boat.
Except that other lofting ATGM are screwed the same way, PARS, Maveric, Hellfire, and probably others as well …
Just with spike it is mist obvious…
2 Likes
I’m well aware, but I was just pointing out that it’s a nightmare to get anything Israeli fixed in the first-place cause Gaijin fucking hates it in-game.
fixed your post.
im gonna torture you <3
Added
1 Like
so they copy paste a new Puma…and C&P the OLD already FIXED bugs over to it…yea Gaijoob is a mess
So will it keep the 4 Spikes?
The extra ones aren’t modeled (yet) and 'm pretty sure they are gonna limit it to 2
from a balancing point it should keep them but because its Gaijin I expect it to only have 2 in the release
Who even use the Puma anyways???
It’s going to be the only 10.7 vehicle and uptiering the 2A4 to 11.7 is not something I’d wanna do.
Imo it should be 10.3 max. Compared to the BMP-2M and 2S38 it’s not much better if at all than either of them.
2 Likes
Because i can just remove the old Puma from my 11.7 lineup and place the VJTF in there
1 Like
I can tell you I´m not gonna use it I got the Vilkas a much better vehicle at its 10.3 BR which while its damage model is not good is still more consistent as the Puma
1 Like