Quote:
Listy said:
Points.
Slat armour is around 8-10 extra points on Anti-heat armour. Look at the Stryker's in the US OOB.
|
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".
Of course the factual basis of these assumed values are zero and none, just me talking out of my arse.
Quote:
Listy said:
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...
|
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?
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.