Armor LOS values

[EasyE]

Few small questions

 

There have been a few updates to the armor models of tanks in SB correct?

 

Are the LOS armor diagrams still accurate?

 

If not are there updated values? Challenger 2 for example seems a little high from what we have learned recently..( I could be wrong and I fully expect to be told that I am)

 

What version of the Leo-2A4 armor do we have in the game? D tech? Any plans to get other armor packages in the game?

 

Thanks for your time.

 

 

[dejawolf]

Challenger 2 is a 2011 "best guess" based on the thickness of the front turret armour.  

basically front turret plate thicknesses(known)*material (estimate) + chobham (rough estimate) + cast turret backing thickness(estimate). 

in any case the armour model has a few weaknesses when it comes to simulating long APFSDS  of different materials vs fullbore penetrators, since different types of material has different protection vs different types of penetrators. 

as an example, older steel APFSDS penetrators are far less effective against sloped armour than newer tungsten and DU penetrators, which means the armour of older tanks won't be represented properly, 

e.g the roof of older soviet tanks (T-62) are much thinner than LOS thickness because they considered the steel APFSDS rounds would be deflected.

also, the current armour model in SB is lacking proper ricochets for full bore rounds, and also ricochet for certain HEAT rounds, where at certain steep angles the HEAT will actually be deflected instead of penetrate. 

 

[Ssnake]

Then again, where ricochets matter the armor thickness of those tanks is so low that even the weakest APFSDS will easily defeat them. Where armor has been tailored to specifically reduce latest generations' APFSDS, it's usually thick enough to still defeat older APFSDS rounds that would withstand bending stresses better.

Once that we would specifically aim to integrate 1950s/early 60s era tanks into Steel Beasts we would of course need to reconsider our underlying models. As it is right now there are less than a handful of edge cases, the BR412 (T-55, 1953) probably being the most prominent case. And here, we're giving this old round every justifiable advantage, but still we're talking about a 230...240mm RHA performing full-bore AP round; that's way more than IFVs can withstand, but way less than would be required frontally against modern tanks. It's primary purpose is to make battles against the Centurion a bit more exciting.

[dejawolf]

well, the earliest all-steel 3BM-9 APFSDS rounds are actually less effective at an angle than later soviet rounds, at least according to this chart: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

 

at 60 degrees the effectiveness drops to 32% instead of the 50% of the later rounds. 

similarly, all throughout the 70s, the round effectiveness gradually increases to about 44% to the end of the 70s. 

 

in other words, the M-60A3, a tank which is all slope and no armour would be able to survive hits far more frequently to the turret front (@2km) from for example the 3BM-12 and 3BM-15, 

than what is currently the case in SB. 

similarly the T-72s are all designed with deflection in mind on the turret roof. one of the most shocking things i discovered 3 years ago when remaking the T-72 interiors is that the front roof of the T-72B is actually vulnerable to 125mm BM-26.