UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.

[JaM]

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)

[PlasmaKrab]

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.

[JaM]

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

[Listy]

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...

[PlasmaKrab]

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.

[Backis]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.