It is AMAP B which you can see on the Boxers. Also since AMAP is considered a Composite Screen (x0.16 RHA) that means just for it to resist the Penetration of a 14.5mm it needs to be 250mm of Thickness.
1 Like
So its realy like that:
Spall-Liner (Missing…)
→ hull(underperforming)
→ AMAP-B(Missing+Underperforming by a hell amount…)
→ ERA/CLARA(Underperforming)
Sounds great xD
3 Likes
Well there is no such thing as AMAP ingame so its more named Composite Screen.
New Report:
Puma IFV (All) Insufficient Side Protection
(Also i noticed that i have been recently popping off with the Reports on the Puma but every help counts <3)
2 Likes
Side armour (behind ERA) is currently;
20mm Al. Alloy 7039 (:= 10mm RHA)
10mm HHA (ig modern HHA, so 11mm RHA, otherwise 12.5mm RHA)
15mm RHA (base hull armour)
2 Likes
I did also mention the calculations in my Report which round about got 37.5mm (10mm RHA, 12.5mm RHA since HHA is x1.25 meaning its 1/4 more effective so 12.5mm and lastly 15mm). The First Plate already has more Armor Irl than the Entire side Armor ingame
Not always.
And no, it doesnt say “modern HHRA” ingame, same as how it doesnt say “modern CHA”…
I’ll check the cdk and then blk to figure out the exact multiplier.
turret_02_side_dm → 20mm Alum. Alloy 7039 := 10mm RHAE
turret_01_side_dm → 10mm mHHRA := 11mm RHAE
body_side_dm → 15mm mRHA := 15.15mm RHAE
2 Likes
I dont really get why Modern HHRA is Less effective than normal HHRA. Pretty sure the Technology to develop these plates has Advanced but i guess we went backwards.
Modern HHA usually has a lower hardness, however tends to be much less brittle in comparison.
So the Combined Armor Value is 36.25mm.
So, i have found a video on a Bundeswehr Exercise with the Puma and in 1 specific moment we can not only see the Rear Armor thickness of the Puma but we have an object to compare it with and its the muzzle brake on the G36.
Oxy just said on the dev stream that some outstanding reports for the Puma are being looked at and should be implemented with the next update.
Maybe were about to get a W for once
looking at the total stream, those bugs must be the wrong name of the Puma, I have no hope for REAL fixes…
Maybe were getting thrown some crumbs to justify the price tag on the prem Puma
Honestly looking at the entire situation as a whole, yea no there is in no way shape or form the Puma gets fixed. If several major bugs were present for Half a Year, then dont be confident that any of those reports were taken into account.
1 Like
Hey @AspectOfTheRAGE, So your report of the Overpressure bug has been fixed (well i hope it is) but they put a weird downside to this. (if i read this correctly)
Nothingburger tbh
It just means that HE fragments hitting the FCS module will result in the game applying pressure damage (i.e. believing an HE shell or its fragments have enough penetration to enter the fighting compartment).
e.g. the H-drive module and commander stuck outside of the actual armour, so non-penetrating shots started applying pressure damage when one of their fragments hit either module.
Now that the commanders head no longer clips through the roof and the h-drive isnt considered to be within the fighting compartment, the current issues we have on LIVE will be resolved as pressure damage is no longer applied in these cases.
Aslong as the FCS module doesnt stick out of the actual fighting compartment, everything is as it should be.
1 Like
Puma IFV (All) Insufficient Side Protection → Duplicate (what i presume is that my newest report regarding the Side Protection has been accepted.)
[DEV] Puma IFVs (All) Missing Side Protection
Called it lul