UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Right We're all aware that those huge slabs of Chobahm are good at stopping RPG-7's, linked to the WR's surviabilty makes them Quite a good vehicle... HOWEVER:

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/i.../bw_wr_fob.jpg

A closer look:

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/i...shaibah_wr.jpg

That looks Like Extra Slat armour on over the Chobahm armour, it looks to be placed mainly to protect the area's that the Chobham doesn't cover. So maybe even bigger Anti-heat value on the sides and front of the WR in the next update?
Edit: looking closer, it seems to be on the turret as well.
Thsoe where taken with 1BW in iraq.

I've also read that the WR fleet is getting a Balistic Computer upgrade, and I'm still waiting to find out details.

EDIT: Here's hte link for the details of the Fire control upgrade:
http://www.soldiermagazine.com/mag/kitstop.htm

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Slat armor is really good at stoping RPG.It neeeds to be better modelled in WinSPMBT.By now, stryker could be killed with all RPGs quite easily.In real,slat armor could stop 70% of them completly( as it work to prevent them to detonate).30% hits will go through the grill with reduced penetration ability (it must burn through the grill, it will loss over 20cm in penetration, but it depends how modern the warhead is.) So such armored Warrior could be quite imune against RPG fire, as its armor could stop remaining plasma.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

The Stryker featureed in the game is the basic version without addon armour. If you want to add slat version, look into the "player icon mods" thread, Stirling posted a pack including an icon for such a one.

Tsahal has been using that kind of standoff RPG armor on their APCs for years. Not to mention the chain necklace on the Merkavas; the whole concept derived from the RPG fences used in Vietnam.

So it has to be modelled in the game, on the most modern Israeli M-113 derivates. Look at their HEAT armor rating: either you will have a good starting base for SLAT, or you'll have something else to upgrade! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I guess you could also start with the dozer-blade additional armor: look at the bonus the mine tanks get on frontal HEAT armor.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Hmm, i've thought that game Stryker+ is the variant with slated armour.After all, it has some (altrough far too low) anti-HEAT armour.

Anyway, in Iraq, polish BRDM-2s and Szakals (Jackals) (wich are BRDM-2s modified for desert conditions) use "mud flaps"- like side shields:
http://foto.pap.com.pl/midi_galerie/..._2621_0006.jpg

(This is actually modified Brdm-2 Zbik-B)

Well, afaik those shields aren't as effective as true bar cage (but better than nothing, i guess). Very nice slated armor for Szakal was developed, but our decidents still havent decided to buy it ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif grrr.):

http://www.militarni.pl/galeria/1905.jpg

Source:
http://www.militarni.pl/?lang=1&...amp;galeria=92
(in polish, but there are some other nice pics there.)

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Isn't there meant the be an intermediate aodd-on armor pack (applique armor), like the ones you find on many recent AFVs?

I don't know if this was ever fielded, and if it was, whether it was then sent to Iraq or if the deployed troops have transitionned to slat armor right away.

Applique armor would match the slight improve in HEAT armor of the Stryker+

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Whoops, looks like the Australians are going for SLAT too:
http://cimg.163.com/news/0411/17/aslav_d18.jpg
This comes from a Chinese website, which says source is Jane's Defense Weekly. Apparently the Australian scurity forces in Iraq have adapted Stryker-similar slat armor on their 18 ASLAV-25s.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

SLAT armor will be effective against older RPGs, but will have smaller effect on more modern warheads like RPG-7VR. So simpliest solution is +33cm HEAT armor to covered areas. SLAT armor will not provide much protection against bigger ATGM missiles(Hellfires,AT-6,9 e.t.c... have better pen than 33..) as their mass and speed could destroy grill and penetrate base armor.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Are you sure about that? ATGMs are generally somewhat slower than RPG rockets and such, and have therefore less kinetic energy to smash the grid. Anyway most HEAT warheads have quite a fragile front cover and thin detonator, and will get crushed against the bars without detonating.

And even if they do detonate, the penetrator will have to cross a great amount of air that will slow it down, cool it down slightly and presumably deflect and disperse it.

So the question is: how much does this air layer affect the penetrator? In other words, how much steel does it stand for against HEAT?
I think we can neglect the thickness of the grid itself, so the main up-armoring component will be air, in the case where the rocket detonates.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

SLAT is not like a classic armor! it prevents warhead to detonate.Fuse dont hit anything, so it will not explode. Bigger ATGM like hellfire are too big. their weight is much bigger, so they demolate SLAT cage at impact and then detonate.Most of modern ATGM has tandem warhead, so if first warhead is damaged at the impact, second will penetrate thru... SLAT is perfect solution fot urban fighting, but will not help against heavy ATGM or tank HEAT round.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Modern warhead will not be affected. Air is not good thing at stoping jet of plasma from penetrating.WW2 HEAT were affected, but technology is far better than in WW2. If you remember, in 2004 there were a situation that wonderweapon disabled Abrams.They thought that it was EM weapon, but at the end after some tests they found that it was just tandem warhead RPG.Side skirts didnt stop penetration even of first warhead. second burned through tank and exited at the other side!

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

OK, don't think I gto it wrong about what WAS slat armor! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I still don't see why an ATGM would have a better effect against it. A LOS-flying classical ATGM like any TOW or HOT or Konkurs or anything is contact-detonated, so in many cases the fuse has as many chances to get caught in the cage and not detonate as with a RPG rocket.

As I told you, I don't think weight will matter that much since the velocity of the thing is fixed and generally subsonic, better as fast as most AT rockets. Though the cage looks frail, it is built to withstand the sheer kinetic blow, as well as small arms fire, collisions, road vibrations and so on. I don't think the weight of an ATGM will make such a difference.

Maybe if you are talking Shturm, Krizantema or Maverick, but in many cases I bet the missile will either detonate prematuredly, get crushed out of order by the grid or even bounce off and THEN detonate. Don't forget the incidence angle!

Anyway in the cases where the warhead does detonate on the cage, a bigger shaped-charge will have more penetration and be less affected by the standoff. This is where you have to calculate how much steel it is worth!
Any data about this, lest you force me to dig out my thermodynamics printouts and bring back painful memories from the times I did study something? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

On the other side, I must agree about thank rounds http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. That is where you have kinetic energy!http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

The only thing i want to point was that modern warheads will be more succesfull against SLAT. RPG-29 has for example thin precursor that will go thru the cage.Heavy ATGM weights around 10-25Kg so it will have much bigger punch,Mavericks, Hellfires, Sthurm Krisantemas or Kornets will be imune, they are quite big to be catched in the cage, Maverick has for example high explosive warhead and not HEAT, so it will be dangerous even for heavy armored tanks

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

The hellfire is also top-hitting as well as most other modern ATGM´s. The cage is good for disrupting the effect of shaped charges, makes them go of earlier and losing their penetration. That is why most modern HEAT rounds have tandem warheads, mostly to defeat reactive armour but that would probably counter this ugly SLAT thing as well.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Its older than that. Russians used to tie bed-springs to the outside of their tanks to interfere with HEAT warheads.

Back then the penetrator stream lost coherence pretty fast so the standoff distance affected the effectiveness of the penetrator. Everything from sandbags to logs were used like this in WW2 by most sides, so I would not attribute this to the Vietnam era.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Alright, I didn't know about these, WW2 is not quite my forte. Was that meant to fence off German hand-held rockets like the Panzerfaust? I thought there weren't that any tank HEAT rounds at the time.

Vietnam RPG fences were just the older example I knew of, and I wanted to point out that spaced grill armor wasn't a new idea.

Anyway any old material was fitted onto armor in conflicts all over the world, since WW2 propulsed HEAT warheads and steel armor have been employed on many occasions.

So sandbags, planks, tyres, etc. can be used to some extent. What would be useful to know is the precise efficiency of these things in terms of armouring.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Regarding the slat armour, this is how I have understood the matter.

The main intention with the armour is probably not just to increase standoff distance as the methods I mentioned in my earlier post. Most modern HEAT rounds retain coherence of their penetrator stream long enough to penetrate most AFV through both sides from a flanking shot, thereby pretty evidently proving that a few decimeters more standoff will make no difference for initial penetration.

My take on the slats as used today are that they are mainly intended to "disrupt" the warhead before they detonate. This is mainly effective against the older type or HEAT rounds such as those used by Iraq (main HEAT threat being the PG-7 and perhaps some PG-7V). This type of protection is effective since the piezoelectric fuze only covers the tip of the forward cone of the round. If this misses the slat the remainder of the warhead will strike them and break up, severely degrading its effectiveness. If the fuze strikes the slat the round will work and probably retain almost full effect regardless of the standoff distance.

However, modern HEAT rounds are usually fuzed over their entire front(f e the AT-4 is) and will detonate when striking the slat, negating any advantage other than the increased standoff (which I hold as rather insignificant).

Add to this that the rounds used in Iraq are mostly really old and crappy examples, having been stored a decade and half longer than they were ever intended to. Some AAR's report a quarter to a third failing to detonate at all, how well those that DO detonate actually work one can only speculate.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

I believe the main intention of the bedsprings were as a stopgap measure to protect against Panzerfaust and Panzershreck. The effect may have been mainly psychological though. But as early HEAT rounds had poor focus they lost coherence and efficiency very fast, so a decimeter of extra standoff could give the equivalent of welding on several centimeters of steel for a fraction of weight and cost.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

This is broadly what we have discussed above in this thread.

Many older warheads, plus probably some tandem HEATs, will have a fine enough fuze well that can slip between two bars, which will lead the warhead to be crushed against the bars without detonating.

About standoff, the question is: from what weapon up can the penetrator be considered untouched by one foot thick of cold air? That is, neglecting the incidence angle. Air won't spend and slow the penetrator jet down as steel would, but the metal will cool down anywauy. If the amount of energy spent is significant or not I must still calculate...

Additionally the bars in these systems seem to be thick enough, in the penetration direction, to deflect and maybe disrupt a penetrator coming at an angle.

Standoff plus a thin steel of hardened sheet seem effective enough against RPGs, since Tsahal has fielded a different kind of plated perforated spaced armor on their M113 "Zelda".

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

So you think that +33 heat armor will be not enough? Even if this type of armor was such perfect against missiles, tank HEAT rounds will crush it,so we need some value wich will represent SLAT.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

I said nothing about it being "untouched, I said it the standoff distance practically possible on vehicles of reasonable size will be pretty insignificant.

Why are you talking about projectile temperature btw? Projectile temperature has nothing to do with its effectiveness.

The HEAT penetrator uses velocity and mass to penetrate. Due to its nature (being a liquid hyper-velocity penetrator formed by an explosion) makes it interact differently with armour, but it still works through kinetic energy.

The standoff gives the liquid stream time to disperse (f e turn into smaller droplets through friction) and loose coherence" and effectiveness. Modern warheads loose coherence slower than early types decreasing the effect of stand off armour.

Most "spaced" armour today has "something" in the space, f e small aluminum balls suspended in foam, that interacts with the penetrator stream rather more agressivley than atmosphere.

I think that the APC mods you refer to use spaced armour matixes more advanced than mere standoff plates. The chain skirt on the Merk is probably intended to prevent people lodging a bomb between the hull and turret overhang, but perhaps also to induce yaw on kinetic penetrators.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

This is directed to Plasma, but I will state my opinion anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

IMHO a HEAT armour of 33 is what simulates this system best within the game engine. Most systems more modern than the PG-7 and 7V will have have higher pen. Some smaller of the modern systems like SARPAC will get fragged by this though...

My opinion of the slat armour is that its a stopgap measure performing its intended purpose, defending against older RPG warheads. If the Stryker brigade would be used against a better equipped foe I think they'd ditch the birdcages, it wouldn't be worth the mobility loss.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

JaM...

Why do you say SLAT armor would stop 70% of RPG's? I'm just wondering what your source is, or is it a judgement call on your part?

I'm not real knowledgable on this subject, but I wonder what we can learn from the fact that SLAT is not applied to tanks or soft vehicles? (HMMVWs and trucks) I think it 'trips' a HEAT warhead, so that the blast disapates enough not to penetrate an IFV, but it not enough to protect a truck. But, it must not provide enough additional protection to tanks to be cost effective. Given those 2 assumptions, it should be easy to look at SP armor values, and then determine what additional protection SLAT offers.

I am also interested by the fact that the SLAT armor is not sloped. I'd think that even a 30% slope in the grills would provide much more protection benefit, than the benefit one would loose from decreased vision. Anyone want to speculate?

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Apparently one of the main advantages of a SLAT-type armor is that many low-level HEAT rockets have a thin enough fuze-tip for it to slip between two bars without hitting something that would cause the rocket to detonate. Then the sheer inertia and speed of the projectile will have it somehow crushed on the cage, the shaped-charge warhead warped so that it is inoperable.

Look at the early PG-7 rockets, and you'll see the point about rocket shape.

If you slope the bars, you will have nearly no space between them, in the incoming rocket direction, so the fuze is bound to hit something and ignite the charge. Of course you will have a sloped steel sheet and some air standoff to hinder the penetration, but no more of these numerous 'dud' cases, which are one of the best ways to prevent a round from penetrating your armour!

One more efficient measure in that style could be to fix together a SLAT-type armor with good standoff AND a sloped up-armouring similar to the EAAK you see on the AAV7,, or on Danish or NZ M-113s. Such a kit would work both ways, but also be twice as heavy.

I think you're right about light vehicles, Kevin, there is just no way of armouring a soft-skinned truck against HEAD rounds, since there is bound to at least some spray from the penetrator going through the SLAT armour, easily wreaking havoc on the unarmoured truck body. Armoured trucks are mainly meant to be protected against small-arms fire.
Besides, any type of RPG-fencing armor kit would be nearly as heavy as the truck it would be mounted on.

About tanks now, I guess the first thing is volume. A Stryker or a BRDM-2 are somewhat smaller AFVs, ut don't have the same mobility requiremnents as a truck forasmuch. As a stop-gap measure, SLAT armor on these is fine enough, but on a 3,5m (11+ ft) wide tank, one additionnal foot of armour on each side would be hell for the drivers in urban areas.
Still there is already some kind of SLAT armour on the turrets of most tanks, in the form of loadout baskets. They provide a primitive standoff protection over the weakest parts of the armor.
Anyway most tanks can stand RPG blows from nearly all angles without too much damage (at least Abrams can), so there is no point is uparmoring anything that much, particularly in the horizontal plane. They would gain more from an ERA pack fitted on the turret roof to shield against attacks from buildings.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

I guess the most efficient spaced armour types use that kind of filler materials, eventually boiling down to some knid of thicker and lighter composite armour...

However, I know for a thing that at least one version of the improved M-113 fielded by Tsahal uses perforated steel plates on a standoff mount against RPG-7 (both sides having deduced from experience that the RPG-7 was a deadly enough weapon against the basic M-113).
Look closely at the pictures on this page for confirmation.

Then again, I don't know exactly how such systems are supposed to work. Istill assume that thermic energy plays its part in the penetration of armour by a shaped charge penetrator (that is, thermic energy gained by the penetrator from the charge explosion). In this regard I think that air spacing will tend to let the penetrator energy decay slightly.
I may be totally wrong here, and I fell more and more like I am http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Apparently the main point is jet focusing indeed, and however modern and powerful your charge may be, the shaped charge is meant to have optimal efficiency at a specific standoff, basically that one between the fuze tip and the bottom and the shaped charge, minus what the front cover will be compressed between fuze hit and penetrator buildup.
Any modification of this distance by detonating the rocket away from the main armour will make the penetrator hit the armour out of focus.
I agree fully that the more standoff is the better. But I guess no one was willing to fit a one meter wide wire cage on any vehicle...

So I guess that 33 or 40 could be a correct modelling value for SLAT armor. Probably there is not enough hard data around yet for us to know what it will stop exactly in which conditions.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Yes, 40 will be ok, as there are some AT weapons like LAW that will be affected too (pen 35) or PG-9 round (pen 40)

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Problem: some tank guns have a HEAT penetrationvalue well under 30. 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.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

I think that game engine will use different ammunition, if target is imune against HEAT,so those tanks will automatically use AP against SLAT equiped APC

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Points.
Slat armour is around 8-10 extra points on Anti-heat armour. Look at the Stryker's in the US OOB.

You start assigning 33 points of armour for slat and you've got to wonnder where it will end! a Warrior is easily able to stop RPG's on it's chobham armour, this has been proved in Iraq So it would have an AV of around 40 for anti-heat. +your proposed 33, and you start getting itno MBT Class armour...

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

So what? That won't be the first APC with MBT armor: look at the Russian BTR-T, the Jordanian Temsah and several Israeli derivates: that is their very purpose!

Besides, Warrior+Chobham+slat will only have a huge HEAT armor. One sabot round or KE missile and over with it!

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Stryker+ featured in the US OOB has only the standard Piranha III applique armor pack on. I don't know when the US oob was made, but probably before slat packs were fielded. Not too long ago though since there are numerous armored Humvees.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Which doesn't simulate its expected effects very well at all IMHO. the "best" simulation would be if you could "flag" the a protected area as covered by slats or not, and induce a failure rate (0-25% pen value) of, oh, lets say 75% on HEAT rounds flagged as "old". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Of course the factual basis of these assumed values are zero and none, just me talking out of my arse. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

I'm not really reading the suggestion as plain adding 33 points to the armour value regardless of what it was before, rather I read it as pushing it up towards the 35-40 level where most of the target warheads are (33+ vs PG-7 at ~280mm RHA and PG-7V at ~320mm RHA).

Short of coding a new type of "reactive armour" as I suggested above I feel this is the best simulation of slat type armours.

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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

If the use is to prevent damage to the armour and lower operational costs (wich it probably won't in many or even most cases) then the game mechanical effects of the addon would be pretty negligent.

My take (simplified). Units carrying slat addon armour should have an armour value against HEAT of around 33-40 (preferably closer to the lower value IMHO), most of the projected threat rounds hang around in that neighbourhood.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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?

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Perhaps less use of absolutes are in order? Never say never and all that, it brings bad luck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

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.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

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.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

With add on +33 HEAT armor you will punnish only old HEAT weapons, not modern rounds, that will have not problem with it,AP armor will be the same. I think that this is the best simulation of SLAT armor, without code changes.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Jam:
Again, many of the lighter and older guns have no AP (or sabot) rounds. The bmp-1 's main gun will have little effect for example.
I don't think flamethrowers, FAE weapons, explosives packs, improvised bombs and gun rounds will be stopped by SLAT and these are all used as AT weapons.

It's also not just a question of whether other rounds will still be able to penetrate, but also one of range. AP rounds of the older and lighter guns will have not much actual penetration left at the longer ranges which are now common for armoured combat. If they hit a vehicle at an angle in particular they often won't be able to penetrate with AP rounds where they would have been able to take out the vehicle had they used a HEAT round.
Newer rounds will also have problems, the higher the HEAT armor, the less chance of actually penetrating. Having a HEAT penetration rating higher than the armor value does not garantuee penetration.

There's also the question of whether and how it will work in combat conditions. Others have mentioned that it won't be able to stop all of the rounds it is supposed to protect against (RPG's for example). That means some will destroy these vehicles. So from that realism point of view if you model it via heat armor values the armor value should be less but close to the penetration values of these weapons. Or you should greatly increase the chance of hitting a weak spot for these vehicles to mimic some of these rpg rounds getting through. But that would make them more vulnerable to other AT weapons too.

There are indeed significant differences between SLAT and ERA, but just adding to HEAT armor doesn't do justice to realisme either. Using 'ERA' values for the game might come closer to reality, maybe not. But I think it's at least an option to consider IF you'd want to model SLAT as it may be the less unrealistic option within the available game mechanics.
Short of a new armor value specific for SLAT it may not be able to effectively put it in the game without these unwanted side effects. It wouldn't be the first thing which doesn't fit within the limits of the game. There is for example just 1 regular and HEAT value per armor side while the actual thickness often varies on such a side. The lower front hull of tanks is usually less well armored for example than the upper front hull.
While I would like to see as many options and new inventions included in the game, there isn't room for everything unfortunately.

Last point, and a new one; will the addition of the SLAT have an effect on other game stats? I'm thinking speed in particular. There is the additional weight which might reduce speed, or possibly other payloads (troops, ammo, etc) if one wants to keep below a weight limit.
Also the increased dimensions could make the vehicle more unwieldly and more difficult to manouvre. That too is represented in the speed rating. Should this (or other values) be modified too? Just asking, 'cause I don't know.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

That is alas untrue. Many coutries are still using and designing advanced light guns.
Look at the modernized Scorpion-90, AMX-13/90, V-150 with gun, or more modern things like SIBMAS-90, ERC-90, Piranha-90...
You have lots of quite modern AFVs with good small-caliber AT guns. Even 76 or 60mm rounds will have a laughable HEAT pen, but quite good APFSDS rounds.

I guess slat armour can be represented by a slightly downsized HEAT uparmouring, say between 20 and 30, to minimize the virtual armour bulk encountered at high angles (however, do as you want, you will still have armour ratings >1000 at very high angles).

With such a value most old or new light-caliber tank rounds can be counted as ripping throught the armour without damage, as Backis pointed out. And I fear such weapons could really be encountered by SLAT-armoured vehicles, even in the near future, since the thing seems to become a standard of the allied kit. Even though might tanks would be surprising, even insurgents could dig out medium AT guns or RCLs.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Not quite. The fact that some modern light guns are being developed with good AP and sabot rounds doesn't change the fact that there already are many guns/units out there which don't have that and that come (mostly) with HEAT rounds.

You should also remember that the performance of AP and sabot rounds decreases significantly at the actual modern combat ranges, unlike that of HEAT rounds. There will be a certain range at which these SLAT vehicles with increased heat-armor will be (depending on angle) immune to both the HEAT and AP/sabot rounds of certain guns where in reality the HEAT rounds would still be able to destroy them.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

You're right, these things are bound to encounter some older-style light guns, were it only in the game, that is what I pointed out saying that simulating slat will have us screwed up both ways. Consider just that there is one small (small catergory of weapons behaving not-quite-accurately regarding reality) and one big (not taking SLAT armour into account at all) drawback.

Since no one of us speaking here designs the game himself, we plain players have to make compromises...:)

What I meant is that even though old 90mm guns have nothing better than HEAT, some actually do have. And even old gun can be fitted withmodern ammo, which is way cheaper than building new tanks. Look at the new sabot rounds for the T-55 guns, for one thing.

Anyway, those old rust heaps will be stuck against modern far-reaching forces, so what? Isn't that the point? As you point out, at modern combat ranges, they will have barely a chance of scoring a hit, let alone a kill.

Look at it this way: you have some Red forces with old M-47 or M-24 or anything facing some Stryker-slats integrated to a modern task force. At long range they will blaze away at the Strykers without doing any harm and get busted in one turn. Anyway at 'Javelin range' their HEAT round will have lost so much KE that they will fal off and should et stuck in the slat anyway.
At short range, they will have more use of their AP rounds, crappy as they might be, and could be able to bore through all slat, composite, ceramic, stell, spall liner or whatever.

So you have both sides at top realism!

And you can also consider the cae of top huts, against which the slat is no protction at all, and which happen more frequently than one may think.

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Narwan: Stryker has not so strong anti KE armor to stop even 75mm gun from ww2! It is just 4-5cm KE,any AP rounds will penetrate this, as this amount of armor was enough in 1941, but not in 1950, so in 2004 it will not be a problem.
All Flame,satchel charge, napalm etc uses HE penetration, not HEAT,HE pen goes against AP protection, so they will not have problem to kill a SLAT (+30 or so) equipped vehicle

Re: UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.
 

Very good article about Stryker and Slat armor:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._21dec2004.pdf