Because Ivans were crying when 2Bs were first introduced and were slapping them into the dirt, so Gaijin made them useless.
1 Like
The 100mm of pen is also hilarious, I mean the missiles practically detonated 100mm above the target anyway. Makes me wonder if heat particle beams are incorrectly implemented/coded or if the missile stats are incorrect,
Yeah, the bug report that originally butchered the TOW-2B was a bit knee-jerk and had highly questionable napkin maths.
Funny enough, the source in the report used to nerf the TOW-2B actually proves that EFPs can penetrate over 150% of their diameter if designed correctly. I’d argue that gives us room to have at minimum 140mm to 160mm penetration; and those are highly conservative numbers. Unfortunately, good TOW-2B info is about as rare as superheavy stable elements, so it’ll never get fixed or changed for the foreseeable future.
Just a reminder, the TOW-2B nerf report took napkin maths, an unsourced “rule of thumb” and an off-the-cuff quote from a M2 Bradley commander as word of god. Said quote can no longer be found on the internet. I’ve been unable to source any official documentation on the “rule of thumb” as well. Napkin maths should be immediately disqualified. It’s not like math can’t be used to estimate things, but there needs to be documentation of what formulae are used and justification for each variable.
New ATGM physics are just the cherry on top of the pile of nerfs and inconsistencies.
3 Likes
There were loads of different TOW-2B warhead bug reports, this is the first one I found (and seems to be different to the one you’re referring to): 2021-06-28 [2.7.0.73] TOW 2B should shoot two EFP(KE penetrators) downward - Documented Ground Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum
It was undeniably wrong that the TOW-2B had a single shaped charge warhead, so various reports got submitted to change it to a dual EFP warhead (which Gaijin them didn’t model properly). No one knows what the actual TOW-2B penetration is, so they just provided estimates to Gaijin. It’s ultimately Gaijin’s job to work out what penetration to give the EFP.
1 Like
And the technical mods refuse to acknowledge issues in a variety of the new top tier jets, no matter how well sourced the report.
2 Likes
The reason why is so bad is you using inverted color schemes for thermals.
1 Like
That’s the thing, the Tow-2B does not use a HEAT warhead to begin eith
Really? Is that a mistake (based on your wording it seems to be that way) or something historical that I’m just now learning.
It uses an EFP, Explosively Formed Penetrator. It’s not a HEAT jet, but a kinetic projectile which maintains penetration over a large distance in comparison. And the 2B should have 2 that fire one after the other. First strips any ERA, the second punches through the raw armor
@tripod2008 do you still have the diagram of the warhead section?
Edit: here is his post with the relevant pictures
3 Likes
In real life the TOW-2B used two Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) warheads (but seems to only have one in game). They are similar to HEAT, but function differently.
HEAT warheads collapse a metal cone into a superheated jet which penetrates using chemical energy. EFPs collapse a metal dish into a high velocity rod / slug which then acts like a kinetic energy penetrator.
The main benefit is that a HEAT yet begins to break up as it travels so it loses a lot of penetration if detonated away from the armour. EFPs generally have lower penetration, but keep that penetration much better as they are a kinetic projectile (like an AP shell) rather than a jet of metal.
4 Likes
Did anyone ever find a source specifically stating the warheads are sequential? From my understanding EFPs shouldn’t be very affected by even heavy ERA since they are much heavier and thicker than APFSDS.
Taking that into consideration 2 EFPs simultaneously hitting 2 different spots on the roof of a tank would most likely cause more damage than 2 sequential EFPs hitting the same spot.
I don’t think it’s been proven, but the presence of a timed initiator suggests that to be the purpose for a second charge. IRL even a single penetration is likely going to be a mission kill for most vehicles. Having 2 sequentially ensures even if the first is entirely absorbed by potential future ERA, the second has only raw armor to penetrate.
Just found this and pretty much confirms they’re not sequential charges unfortunately. Unless there’s a newer block or variant of the 2B since this ad looks pretty old. It does mention substantial pyrophoric post pen effects due to the composition of the EFPs 👀
Welp, ya learn something new everyday :D how fascinating!
That’s the exact report I referred to. After not seeing it for so long, I am reminded that it’s even worse than I remembered. OOC quotes of a misread science paper, hearsay from a military expo interview, a “rule of thumb” without source and napkin maths should’ve gotten that report discarded.
Of course, the anemic penetration and performance of TOW-2B is partially gaijin’s fault, but let’s not absolve misguided (benefit of doubt) actors involved.
The two efps aren’t for ERA as there there is no source (at least to my knowledge) that ever stated that was the case. EFPs are also naturally resistant to ERA so the dual warheads being for ERA is dubious. It’s more likely that the two warheads are for an increase in probability of destroying the vehicle outright.
This, after all the front warhead is canted forward a few degrees to spread out the impact effects, they wont impact the same exact spot even if they were set to detonate sequentially. (without a rather massive delay for a tandem style charge that is)
1 Like
I’ve been reading a few research papers about the interaction of EFPs with ERA. Unsurprisingly most concluded even heavy ERA has little effect on tantalum EFPs when mounted at a low angle (0-25 degrees). Only when the angle is 45 degrees or higher does ERA significantly degrade the EFP with tantalum EFPs (same as Tow2B) being affected the least.
So realistically Tow2Bs should be punching through any roof ERA and roof armor.
2 Likes
Yep. In fact the effectiveness of ERA even against apfsds (or any kinetic penetrator for that matter) is dependent on the angle of heavy ERA to the penetrator. I believe the higher the angle the more effective the ERA is. It’s why instead of kontakt-5 being mounted flat to the turret face, it’s instead made to form wedges.
Edit: Also fun fact, heavy ERA effectiveness against kinetic penetrators is measured in percentage of a penetrators total effective pen (meaning it changes based on the kinetic penetrator) not raw RHA or Steel equivalent.
2 Likes
Exactly it’s the same principle. I was curious to look into it as I’ve seen a lot of Russian and Chinese armor enthusiasts claim roof ERA can counter most any top attack missiles ( not too many on this forum specifically).
I had a feeling it was the same story with EFPs but since they’re technically different than sabot and HEAT shaped charges I wanted to make sure.