Let me see…
2A4 turret side steel is 1.25x (35mm LOS with 44mm KE effective). Let’s see if it’s just outer, or both steel plates.
If outer, 200-(44+45)=111. 111/220 = 0.5x KE NERA.
If both, 200-(44+56)=100. 100/220 = 0.45x KE NERA.
Verification with turret cheek: (let’s say it’s) 89mm + (585x0.45=263) =352 . And in game we have…
they are indeed much lighter, but yeah, against KE the protection is much worse, considering they also use stuff like aluminum and titanium paired with ceramics. But the ceramics improves HEAT protection greatly. Only in Soviet case the composite armor seems to be better at protection from KE, than from CE!
I haven’t been following the math, but the armour modifiers are supposed to be as per this wiki page - there’s only a handful or types have modifiers >1.00 vs KE, and they are all types of steel.
So if the math for some composites is showing otherwise then it should be bug reported.
I noticed that T-72A is one of the few (I hope there are more, at least) Russian MBTs where textolite is close to it’s real life performance (0.4x KE vs 0.236x KE), giving 320-350 mm protection. Pretty close to what public sources say! Again, according to the pinned post, the steel protection higher in real life because Gaijin modelled it as 1x KE steel, while IRL it has been of 300 BHN, giving it 1.05x KE, realistically.
Also T-64A.
It feels underperforming… 118-100 = 18mm… For 105mm textolite that’s just 0.17x KE, I’d buff this fella, even though it creeps me out in my WZ-122
doesnt that line up pretty well with the real multiplier?
I found 147mm steel total: 66/60 = 1.1, 32/30 = 1.07. 66+50+32 = 148. 196-148 = 48 textolite protection. 48/100 = 0.48x KE
what about composite arrays that also have a KE focus like the Abrams extremely dense DU alloy armor
it’s much more realistic than what we have on Object 292, T-80U series and T-80BVM, yeah
Not modelled in the game tho’ is it, and so not in the list?
really? isnt there a difference on turret armor for non-DU and DU abrams?
HC/M1A2 have 502mm flat armor on average (on the right cheek as current example). Steel is 1x = 502-(101+38=)139=363mm. 363/800 = 0.45x KE for turret NERA.
M1A1 for example: 335-139= 196/800 = 0.245x KE NERA.
Also, as future M1A1 AIM owner - yay, it has 0.44x turret!
494-139=355/800 = 0.443x
Yes, indeed, I calculated using the wrong modifier.
Hence people found it interesting to see the values of other tanks than Soviet/Russian ones, like Abrams, I think we need to calculate some more:
1x65mm steel , NERA is 500mm, so hull is (can’t be flat, only 14 deg) 555-65=490/500=0.98x KE. On turret it’s… 1x90 steel and supposedly 490-539mm NERA? So either 580 or 629… see below
Just 540mm in average spot! Turret is weaker than the hull! 450mm for NERA protection. 0.9x or 0.81x, depending on it’s actual thickness.
1.25x for turret steel, again, as on 2A4. But here we will have different NERA KE, see how!
44+45 = 89mm steel, 585mm NERA, and uh, 80mm composite at 45 degrees = 115mm. Effective thickness = 625-115=510-89=421. 421/585=0.71x turret NERA! But 80mm composite indeed gives great protection. 100mm angled composites are also applied to hull, which is… 89+520 giving 303mm of protection without composite, but with 1.00x 10mm screen. 303-99=204. Depending on thickness, it may be 204/520 = 0.39x KE, or 204/280 = 0.72x KE. Like turret, pretty much!
It was tricky, but I found a spot on the turret roof! With 200 mm of NERA and 25mm of steel, you get sad 87mm protection… 62mm from NERA… 0.31x only! Merkava’s turret is sadder than the hull I measured somewhere above…
wow, its what, like 50-60% better than even DU turret Abrams modifier?
thanks for the comparisons and calculations
Yep, also I think Strv122 family has even more armor, at same angle as Leo2A7 giving from 640 to 720mm. Unsure if turret is actually different, but hull features more armor too, it’s a known thing
260-89=171 = 0.74x KE turret NERA
