In view of the poor protection performance of the Mk4 in the current game, will the new “Barak” also be made into a “Copy” Mk4?
This is not very accurate. The “structure” of a tank IS its armor. There is no “non armor” framework within a modern AFV.
Modern MBT composite armor arrays are contained within steel armor boxes. Those are not light by any means. Neither are the composite arrays, especially the DU ones on M1s. The are far lighter than the equivalent multiple feet thick solid steel, but we are still talking many hundreds of kg per cubic meter. I think the Merkavas and late model Magachs have the most extensive composite arrays of any contemporary tanks, and they are also some of the largest tanks as well, so they will have a very high percentage of “composite armor” to total mass.
So a Merkava would be quite spry without all of its add on armor.
It’s both.
The M1A1 for sure has strenghtening bulkheads and I highly doubt it’s the only tank to feature such a thing.
These vehicles have to resist the significant stresses placed on them when in use, this necessitates certain areas to be thickened which comes with it’s weight penalties.
Comparatively, they’re pretty light.
The suspension on an M1A1’s hull accounts for 30% of it’s total weight, the basic structure accounts for 31% and it’s composite armor accounts for a mere 5%.
Composite armor is applied to a small area relative to the overall structure of the vehicle, that’s why it often makes up the minority of total weight.
I agree, I’ve just been pointing out that the argument of: ‘‘Tank [X] is heavy, therefore it must be well armoured’’ is a fallacy.
Overall dimensions, efficiency of volume, steel thickness of the structure, etc. those play the largest role in determining a vehicle’s total weight, not the internal composite packages.
The Leopard 1A1 weighs about the same as a T-72A, yet the T-72A features significantly superior armour protection.
I never have the shells in that spot personally. I only ever fill up one internal ammorack with shells.
It should have twice the APS charges at the very least.
Also, I wonder if Gaijin will model the Target Detection Assistance that the new Merkava gets. It would be neat if we got a small box or something highlighting visible targets around us, though I can see how that could be bad for gameplay. It’s essentially a cheat lmao
The T-72 is only well protected at the front. It has a very efficient design, with good tilt angles and light composite armour.
While the Leopard 1 does not offer great protection, its armour is also not well modelled in WT and it does not have composite armour, which provides greater protection with less weight.
I don’t think they are comparable, at least in WT.
I’m unaware of the Leopard 1 having Composite Armor. I’d love to know more if you have documentation or photos/videos.
As for comparability, the Leopard 1 is objectively better in most aspects than the T-72A in WarThunder. It’s much faster and gets Thermals. The only redeeming factor of the T-72A is the solid armor, but it’s not that hard to avoid it.
T-72 has 80mm side armour, Leopard 1 has around 40mm.
Are you implying the Leopard 1’s had composite armour? Because the in-game variants didn’t.
No it fur sure doesn’t. It actually is prone to hull warping if the tracks parked with differential tension on them from a neutral steer.
That is not true unless you are counting the entire running gear, track, wheels, torsion bars etc. And even then that seems a bit high.
What you don’t appreciate is that isn’t a separate thing. The “structure” is part of the armor package and that includes the composite arrays. You can’t just say “the peanut butter in the NERA doesn’t weigh very much”, because the hull and turret and all the other systems around it have to be built to accommodate it. A Merkava without its composite armor, (ie; a light tank with only 60mm or so of armor) would probably be about half its weight for example.
The Leo has better mobility and a 4 man crew. The T-72 is an extremely compact, “efficient” design that… lets just say, hasn’t aged well.
I know, i know, I never load the full capacity, for obvious reasons. However, that doesn’t mean that ammunition should be there.
When the LAHATs arrive, I’ll surely increase my ammunition stock; I just hope that won’t be a problem.
1 Like
L1 doesn’t have composite armor. Maybe I expressed myself badly, idk, but that’s what I meant.
Yeah, it came off as if you were suggesting the Leopard 1 had a composite upgrade package.
Although… That might actually exist. It’s not out of the question that it could exist.
It remains irrelevant, its protection is concentrated on the front.
I meant the opposite, which is why I don’t see the comparison as fair.
Well, at least the A1 variants that were upgraded to the A5 standard don’t have composite armor.
However, the A3 and A4 variants have spaced armor similar to 2K or Rad90.
Interesting. That could prove fun to have
It is.
It doesn’t matter what you personally think is high or not, I’ve got primary source documents that go into exact detail on this stuff, and I’ll stick with what is written in such documents.
‘‘Basic Structure’’
‘‘Front Armor’’
Listed seperately with their individual weights.
No kidding!
The whole point of the comparison is to show the fallacy in the argument.
And I’ve actually worked on M1 tanks. So…
The “suspension” on an M1 tank are a bunch of torsion bars and rotary shock absorbers that only weigh a few hundred pounds each. 14 of them do not add up to 30% of 65 tons.
An M1’s tracks weigh 5 tons.
The roadwheels are aluminum so don’t even weigh more than a ton or two.
So you or your sources are mistaken. 30% is closer to the entire powertrain.
Okay?
That doesn’t change the fact that I’ll take primary source US documents over a stranger’s opinion.
I’ve provided you with the exact document, so there’s no reason for you to remain ignorant and not read through it yourself. Your reply makes it very clear you haven’t done so.
And if you still believe the data I’ve shared is incorrect, show me a source of higher authority of your own and I’ll gladly change my mind on the topic, but until then I’ll stick with what I’ve got.
Lol. You didn’t provide a document. You provided a scan of the cover of an old test report for the CATTB which was a experimental test, not even an actual M1.
Anyway I have already exceeded my quota for pedantic arguments with ppl who can’t be argued with for the week.
You can go google all of the information I have told you and see I am correct. But you don’t have to apologize or thank me.
going off topic
1 Like