Hello!
Why aren’t the NATO vehicles (especially IFVs) in the game armored according to STANG standards? Until the BMPT was introduced, I thought it was just a game balance adjustment, but now that it’s been introduced, the question has been resurrected. Can someone explain?
7 Likes
They are, in the sense that according to bug report feedback they think that resistance to 30 mm (STANAG 6) means 30 mm RHAe protection (see Challenger applique armour reports).
5 Likes
Because of wierd Bugs, which somehow effect in 98% the cases only NATO vehicles
While 1% which is overperforming is not NATO stuff
(I look at you ERA)
And 1% which runs under double Standards (External Belts cough)
6 Likes
Which is absolutely absurd. And hell not even true in game. PUMA for example can be penned by a 50cal. And even MBTs get wasted by the Terminator’s 30mm apds.
2 Likes
It was something with angles as well i seem to remember, for the sideskirts at least. The 30 mm RHAe stopped 25 mm APFSDS up until 30degree from the front, which they meant equaled the STANAG classification.
1 Like
However, I think that would be classified as STANG5. STANG6 is a standard that can withstand 30mm APFSDS at a distance of 500m.
3 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gpuxRxnCZtm7
This report i was thinking of
1 Like
KF41 and Nameir should be up there. Most of those newer Western IFV’s should be immune on their front plates for the most part.
+Puma
1 Like
Hmm. Why do the moderators insist that STANG standards are met by only evaluating protection against steep diagonal hits, rather than horizontal hits? If we’re specifically evaluating the protection of non-sloped add-on armor, I’d think we’d evaluate it against horizontal hits…
I believe that is how they are defined: STANAG 4569: Protection Levels for Armored Vehicles - militaryvehiclesdata.com
Military protection standards are generally quite vague and include a lot of assumptions made in other documents. For instance if I recall, the IS3 passed armour penetration trials against the long 88 from the side, while it was only actually the upper section of it’s side profile that was resistant to the weapon in question.
Since the IS3’s protection rating is a thing of the past, wouldn’t there be a difference in the accuracy of the information compared to the STANG standard, which is now widely adopted as a military vehicle protection standard by NATO member states? Furthermore, accurate information about the detailed protection capabilities of current military vehicles is generally unavailable unless it is leaked. Therefore, wouldn’t accurate information be obtained from official sources such as manufacturers or military sources?
1 Like
The issue remains the same regardless of era or region. Often criteria for protection and penetration are very strange things because details are lost in the bureaucracy and intelligence gathering.
Standards are also likely to be only for a certain percentage of vehicle surface area with possible exceptions made for areas deemed unlikely to be hit.
That said if anything were to make such standards less reliable it would be NATO.
Since the topic is focussed on NATO IFVs, either look for someone who has done armour simulations of a vehicle with known armour composition, or go to Patriot Park yourself, measure the armour, note it’s composition and make some simulations against relevant threats.
I recommend using Bradley variants for this analysis, due to the simple composition of their armour.