Now, I am not here to say it is underperforming statistically, simply because I don’t have the sources to back up or alter my impression of the armour itself. What I am here to do, is ask why it works the way it does.
I will use the Magach 6 to show what I mean. I am aware cast armour is less effective, and have thought about this.
This image, lined up by one of the screws on the front of the ERA, shows about 89mm of cast armour, fronted by Blazer ERA, with a 50mm outer housing, I’m assuming that is accounted for in the ERAs effectiveness, and an alleged 260mm of CE protection.
This image, shows a PG9 from a BMP 1, with 300mm of pen, being able to defeat the ERA, and the armour backing it, with the 260mm of CE, and about 83mm of RHA equivalent taking into account the modifier. If I were to combine these values, I’d think I had 343mm of protection against HEAT munitions overall.
This is where I get confused, and begin to misunderstand the mechanic. I initially thought that this would detract the stated amount of penetration for the round, but if that is the case, that round has not lost 260mm of penetration.
Some further explanation of the mechanic would be appreciated, since I do not understand in which ways the projectile is degraded. The preview even going as so far as to state the whole assembly of armour, only being worth 250mm.
4 Likes
I think in protection analysis, the armour values are simply added up. I don’t believe that the penetration value is ever subtracted by an armour value, only by angles and distance. That said, it is very strange that PG-9 can penetrate that despite, when added up, the armour values are higher then the penetration value.
The ERA tooltip protection ratings can seem misleading at first because they’re not static values. The protection it provides changes depending on the angle of impact. The more angled the ERA, the more effective it is, and conversely flat shots are less effective.
The listed statcard value is taken roughly from when shooting from the front, at the upper/lower front plates, where the ERA is angled 52 and 53°.
But its the same ERA on the sides of the turrets, so to get the same ERA protection values, you have to hit at the same angle of attack.
Though for that shot, because the turret behind is thinner, the total protection is lower. But the amount provided by the ERA is about the same as the 1st shot.
That’s the issue, you can’t just add the values because at that angle of attack, the ERA CE rating is lower than 260mm.
1 Like
The issue I have here, is historically I believe this armour was designed to completely defeat the early RPG 7 models at all angles of attack, and the Malyutka from front on angles.
I believe the ‘260mm’ figure is a reflection of the first statement, as that is the most often listed penetration value for an RPG using the earlier warheads. If that is the case, then the value would logically be 260, increasing effectiveness with angle, as I cannot see where else the number came from.
I unfortunately cannot find any solid sources to state the performance of the armour beyond what has been said online, but the coincidental matches in protection values, versus what it was out to fight, would make me think that the armour is intended achieve a flat 260mm of CE protection.
Obviously, you are right though considering that this round is able to penetrate the ERA + Backing armour without even being able to attain the listed penetration value.
I thought that there was perhaps a hidden degradation mechanic, but after seeing this i’m not exactly sure if it’s working at all, this shows that the CE value doesnt even provide 180mm of degradation.
And that begs the question, why even advertise the armour as 260mm CE at all? It is a simple truth that every ERA will become more effective with angle, much with any RHA or composite addons.
Other ERA, like the tiles found on the Magach 6C, states a 370mm CE protection, and its own HEAT shell coming to 400mm in penetration does not have the power to penetrate the armour.
This is why I find this all so perplexing.
1 Like
