UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.

[Backis]

PlasmaKrab said:
These are old late-WW2 guns or such, but high velocity nonetheless. Do we assume these rounds will be stopped by the SLAT anyway? Maybe low-tech enough to be totally spent by 25cm standoff.

For reference, 35 is the lowest HEAT value for 105mm tank guns I have found (haven't checked everything though). 90mm guns, even the most modern, are generally slightly under 30.

Since the basic Stryker has no HEAT armour, what will be added will be the only protection between HEAT rounds and destruction.

In truth, gun launched HEAT rounds should usually not be affected by lightweight slat armour like that carried by the Stryker. The rounds are constructed a lot tougher mainly because they are supposed to be fired out of a gun, and won't be "dashed to bits" so easily as a PG-7. Older types can be even tougher since they are supposed to be fired out of a rifled gun...

BUT, these types are old rounds, how often will slat type armour come up against these old type gunlaunched rounds?

Perhaps this would be a smaller problem than not representing the slat protection against early RPG ammunition?

[Listy]

I sincerely doubt that Warriors "Chobham" (lets call it what it is, composite armour) addon plates cover the profile 100%, and that even if they do they probably won't truly "easily" stop PG-7 class threats all over. After all, if they did, why the need to add the slats to begin with?

Did I say all over? you look at the pictures at the start of the thread you can see that it cover's all the whole hull apart from the engine bay and the rear. And yes that stuff is RPG proof. look at Pvte beharry's Actions in a warrior that got him a VC. Also soem freinds jsut back from IRaq confirm that hte chobahm is totaly RPG proof(Of course if it hits any where else then it's going to rip stright through).

WR is survivable, so with am ax HEat pen from an RPG-7V being about 50 a Heat AV of 35-40 is about right, just like you said.

[narwan]

Some opinions on the SLAT;

IF (big if as far as I'm concerned) this type of armor is actually effective in the way it is supposed to work, increasing the HEAT armor to the same value as the warheads doesn't make sense. As was stated earlier by others, it won't even stop all the older RPG rounds. Some will detonate and probably have enough power left to damage/destroy the vehicle in question. So if these rounds are still able to destroy the vehicle, the armor rating should be less than the warhead rating. The closer the armor rating comes to the theoretical penetration value the less chance there seems to be of actual penetration (the actual penetration value of a HEAT warhead varies somewhat). So if you want to model this, you should take a lower armor value. How close it should be to the penetration value(s) is another matter.

That brings me to the question of IF you'd want to model this. By raising the HEAT armor value you're affecting much more than just these old RPG-type rounds. Gun HEAT rounds, ATGM warheads, antitank grenades (like energa's), rifle grenade rounds, smaller sized rocket's, and probably a couple more, will all be made less effective or even ineffective in the game where they are not, or not nearly as much, in reality. So does it make sense to model the protection at best offered to some types of rocket propelled grenades in a way that's 'unrealistic' regarding lot's of other 'penetrators' using the same game mechanic? I doubt it.

Narwan

[Backis]

narwan said:
So does it make sense to model the protection at best offered to some types of rocket propelled grenades in a way that's 'unrealistic' regarding lot's of other 'penetrators' using the same game mechanic? I doubt it.

Narwan

Well, we either live with a flawed representation of the system or none at all... the game mechanics do not, probably will never, support this type of armour.

The reason why I'd set the AV a bit above the pen value of the target warheads is that penetrations will still occur due to strikes against "weak spots" as implemented by the code.

The problem may be that angled shots may get to much armour to penetrate in the end though...

The questions we need to ask if we want to simulate the slat type armours are how the game mechanics will allow/disallow different approaches to simulating this.

[Backis]

Listy said:
Did I say all over? you look at the pictures at the start of the thread you can see that it cover's all the whole hull apart from the engine bay and the rear. And yes that stuff is RPG proof. look at Pvte beharry's Actions in a warrior that got him a VC. Also soem freinds jsut back from IRaq confirm that hte chobahm is totaly RPG proof(Of course if it hits any where else then it's going to rip stright through).

WR is survivable, so with am ax HEat pen from an RPG-7V being about 50 a Heat AV of 35-40 is about right, just like you said.

Perhaps less use of absolutes are in order? Never say never and all that, it brings bad luck.

PG-7V Pen shouldn't be higher than about 26-32 (sources I have vary between ~260mm RHA and ~320mm RHA), the PG-7VR is between ~500-600mm RHA. Sometimes I really wonder who makes some of the OOB decisions... in the Russian obat the 1978 "RPG-7V" gets a pen of 60 (I assume that "RPG-7V" refers to an RPG firing a PG-7V warhead, at least the dates support this somewhat, the VR not being available in 1978 and all...).

Now, at first I assumed that you were writing about the standard armour of the Warrior, but I now understand that its the add-on appliques you're referring to, right?

Then I'd agree that they are probably reliably resistant to PG-7/PG-7V warheads, probably even against somewhat greater threats than these.

[JaM]

You need to think in game terms. Heat penetration works different.Round with pen 31 will penetrate armor with armor 30(it is possible penetrate even 31). Game counts with weak spot hits, as you know, it gives + bonus penetration (it happends mainly durng close range fire) so we should forget about all those RPG penetrating thru the cage.Bonus +33 will make IFV with SLAT more resistant to RPG fire (as it is in real),tank HEAT round will be affected too, but you are not able choose ammo, game choses instead, so tanks will use AP rounds against target witch is imune to HEAT fire.

[narwan]

Jam:
you're making the false assumption that the vehicles in questions even have a useful AP round. Those gun types affected often have either a fairly weak AP round (not much use at medium and long ranges UNLIKE the HEAT round) or are only equipped with HEAT. Also it is irrelevant whether or not the units in question have a choice in rounds. That changes nothing to the fact that the effect of gun HEAT rounds would be modelled very unrealisticly.

Backis:
the question is not whether we want a flawed representation or none at all, the question is whether this addition results in a more realistic game or whether it does more 'damage' to the realism than good. To illustrate, I've checked just the Iraqi OOB for weapons affected by this change. The following would be rendered useless or close to it with regards to HEAT:
rifle grenades, RPG2, RKG3M, RPG7, 84mmM136, improvised bomb, RPG18, RPG16D, B10 RCL, B11 RCL, SPG9 RCL, up to 3 dozen different gun types (including almost all tank guns of 115mm and less), ATO VFT, flamethrowers, satchel charges, Shmel ATGM, Malyutka ATGM, FFAR's, Molotov's.
That's just the Iraqi OOB. Check the whole game and you can add quite a few more weapons to the list.

I think people are focusing way to much on method here and not on effect. The point of this game is to model EFFECTS, not necessairily actual methods. For example, to give howitzers an AP round without having to give this the same range as the HE round (unavoidable due to code restrictions) these guns got a 'sabot' round. Doesn't mean they actually have sabot rounds, but sabot's have their own range so it works with regards to game effect.
SLAT does not really add 'armor', it reduces the effectiveness of some types of incoming rounds, certain HEAT rounds in particular. This results in less hits on the vehicle. It's a 'percentage armor'; it doesn't give full protection as 'regular armor' but results in a reduced CHANCE of hits for certain warheads. Seems to me the closest thing in the game to represent this is ERA.
That will potentially affect all HEAT warheads but will 'wear out'. Even with the ERA the vehicle can still be hit and damaged and once it's expended all types of HEAT weapons can damage it. Perhaps (and I stress, perhaps) this can be balanced in such a way as to reduce the TOTAL amount of damaging hits on a vehicle similar to the actual reduction (in real life) by the SLAT. The effect will be less succesfull hits on the vehicles without giving them unrealistic 'invulnerability' to lots of weapons.

Just adding to HEAT armor will, due to the fixed code of the game, IMO, do a lot more damage to realism than good.

Narwan

[Backis]

narwan said:

the question is not whether we want a flawed representation or none at all...


Just adding to HEAT armor will, due to the fixed code of the game, IMO, do a lot more damage to realism than good.

Narwan

Err...

Yes, that is exactly the question you're answering here, and your POV is that it shouldn't be represented.

I can live you having that POV, please live with me not sharing it.

[narwan]

Thank you for putting words in my mouth but I prefer my own.

Off course you are entitled to your POV, unfortunately you seem to have been able to miss just about every point I made. And no, it is not 'exactly the question' I'm answering, and no, my POV is not that it should not be represented. Just actually read my post and you'll see what I did say.

[JaM]

Narwan, any AP round is enough against APC with SLAT! All AT weapons in your list (exept FFAR maybe) will be stopped due to SLAT armor,as they have fuze in the tips, so they will be uneffective.With ERA you will stop even heavy ATGMs,Molotovs are working differently, you could destroy even most armored tank with them in close assault. Mayor difference (in real) between SLAT and ERA is that SLAT will be effective even after hits to the same spot, ERA not.