Challenger 2 armour

[Pilotagm]

Hi, this is a AAR for an engagement between a T-72B3 using a SBM59 round , against a challenger 2. Looking at where the round hit the challenger and the armour map I would have thought the armour should have stopped the Sabot round? The SBM59 projective should not penetrate 1027mm of armour? Or am I reading this all wrong. Appreciate input.

 

Thanks

Adrian

[Grenny]

The hit was right at the edge of 2 armour "tiles".

Given that the placement of the hit-rays is not 100% accurate in SB, the hit may well have been on the lower front plate and not the upper

[Ssnake]

Wellll... shouldn't be that inaccurate, at least not in the vertical.

Yes, in network sessions discrepancies can occur if there's considerable lag and maybe a newtwork message with a position update doesn't reach a client, with the position update then in one of the follow-up messages. Since the resolution of a player taking a shot at a vehicle under control of a remote computer is taking place on the shooter's machine and the AAR may be seen from another machine, discrepancies may occur (and in that case, on the AAR on the shooter's computer will show the accurate impact location).

Still, vehicles are clamped to the ground. The terrain in this screenshot appear to be quite flat. If the Challengers was moving, it was largely in the axis of travel of the impacting round. We don't know from the description if this even was a network session - so, even assuming the worst conditions, the vertical vehicle displacement would be minimal in this specific example, and if the conditions were optimal, then the impact location is recorded with precision.

 

So, I would consider that explanation as rather unlikely. That doesn't mean that I can offer a better explanation. Maybe the diagram from the Wiki page is inaccurate. I must confess, the jump from 281mm to 1027mm at the edge of the add-on armor appears rather dramatic, so maybe something was changed (these diagrams don't get dynamically updated with each Steel Beasts release). In short, we would need to investigate before giving a more definitive answer.

[dejawolf]

8 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

So, I would consider that explanation as rather unlikely. That doesn't mean that I can offer a better explanation. Maybe the diagram from the Wiki page is inaccurate. I must confess, the jump from 281mm to 1027mm at the edge of the add-on armor appears rather dramatic, so maybe something was changed (these diagrams don't get dynamically updated with each Steel Beasts release). In short, we would need to investigate before giving a more definitive answer.

 

well probably. it could be that it was later discovered that the ROMOR-A tiles did not protect against KE as well as assumed, and that it was changed later. 

[Pilotagm]

hi , thanks for the input. A little more detail from me. It wasn't a network session. I ran the scenario letting the AI take control of both sides on one computer. The T-72b3 where in a static fixed location. The challengers were assaulting. Another challenger got knocked out in a similar area. As you say maybe the diagram was wrong...but it sort questions the armour on the Challenger2...

 

Thanks 

Adrian

[Volcano]

I can say that the armor diagram, while it is useful, isn't always correct.  For one thing, the slight angle of how a target is sitting might cause the LOS to be significant enough to hit differently to how the diagram is showing. The other issue is that this gigantic hit ray is a visual of what is essentially a pin-point impact on the model, so it doesn't exactly help when we might be talking about inches (like in the last image where its likely hitting below the area you are referring to on the diagram).

 

Then there is a matter of the fact that armor levels are revised over time, and the diagrams are not updated. Just recently I did photoshop in a few different numbers on that very diagram on the turret front (the 750 KE from ~1000 KE before) to reflect the coming revision in a patch, along with on the Leo 2's diagrams, but this updating of the diagram is rare and honestly I don't recall *ever* doing it before so its probably something where there are plenty of areas that could be considered "out of date". But really:  the diagrams are only meant to give you an idea of where the most protection is, and a general idea of what that protection might be, rather than providing 100% reliable results.

 

(Seeing as how that T-72B3 round is one of the most powerful in SB, it isn't unreasonable that that happened, especially since slightly above and below that area is significantly thinner - just sayin'.) 

[Pilotagm]

thank you for the reply. A few other questions if you would allow. Would either the Leopard 2 or Abrams armour provide better protection to the sbm59? Also what is the chances that the sbm59 will be used widely in Ukraine? What would the most common round be (say80% of the time).

 

I appreciate the help. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Pilotagm

[Ssnake]

It depends on the hit location, and which Abrams/Leopard 2 we're talking about. Later models and turret fronts being hit, I'm relatively optimistic about it. Earlier models, and/or hits in other locations - the BM59 will probably win. How prevalent this ammunition will become is impossible to predict (except for the "prediction" that the Russians will probably attempt to expedite production and distribution). It's also a matter of doctrinal employment. We typically see tanks being used in the infantry support role, as assault guns, or even lobbing HE shells indirectly. There are, of course, tank-on-tank duels, but they don't seem to dominate the action.

[Gibsonm]

51 minutes ago, Pilotagm said:

thank you for the reply. A few other questions if you would allow. Would either the Leopard 2 or Abrams armour provide better protection to the sbm59? Also what is the chances that the sbm59 will be used widely in Ukraine? What would the most common round be (say80% of the time).

 

I appreciate the help. 

 

The armour package / protection model varies markedly across both Leopard 2 and M1 families.

 

Leopard 2A4, 2A5, 2A6 and 2A7 all have different protection levels.

 

Its a similar story with M1, M1A1, M1A1HA, M1A2SEP2, M1A2SEP3, etc.

 

Ah looks like Ssnake has just covered similar ground.

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Pilotagm]

some interesting points raised. Online there is a view that the common sabot round would be the 3bm42 Mango in Ukraine...I may give that a trial in SB to see how the Challenger 2's armour  does against it. The other point raised is the main role the of challengers etc being in support of infantry....which is an excellent point.

 

Thankyou for your time.

Adrian

[Pilotagm]

hi, ran a meeting engagement between with the challenger 2 and t-72b3 , the b3 using the mango round, and the results swayed more to the Challenger .... the projectile used (which may seem obvious but probably not to me earlier) is key.

[gunner 74]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Dipende dal luogo del colpo e di quale Abrams/Leopard 2 stiamo parlando. I modelli successivi e i fronti delle torrette vengono colpiti, sono relativamente ottimista al riguardo. Modelli precedenti e/o successi in altre località: il BM59 probabilmente vincerà. È impossibile prevedere quanto saranno diffuse queste munizioni (eccetto per la "previsione" che i russi probabilmente tenteranno di accelerare la produzione e la distribuzione). È anche una questione di occupazione dottrinale. Di solito vediamo carri armati usati nel ruolo di supporto della fanteria, come cannoni d'assalto, o anche lanciare proiettili HE indirettamente. Ci sono, ovviamente, duelli tra carri armati, ma non sembrano dominare l'azione.

in this regard, the use of Russian MBTs as artillery, I share this interesting article, if not relevant, please admins to remove the comment without problems.

https://wavellroom.com/2023/01/18/a-tank-is-not-a-howitzer/?utm_content=buffera6bd5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Grenny]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I We typically see tanks being used in the infantry support role, as assault guns, or even lobbing HE shells indirectly.

Would be nice to have the Az, elavation indicators in the Leopard 1 modelled, for exactly this purpose

[Ssnake]

5 hours ago, Pilotagm said:

hi, ran a meeting engagement between with the challenger 2 and t-72b3 , the b3 using the mango round, and the results swayed more to the Challenger .... the projectile used (which may seem obvious but probably not to me earlier) is key.

The choice of ammunition will seriously influence the balance of many scenarios. Tanks are usually made no heavier than what is required to withstand the known potential of adversary munitions. The Leopard 2 of 1979 is not the same as in 1989, 1999, or 2019. Both armor and ammunition have evolved considerably over the decades. Typically, with 10% more performance gain a new generation of projectiles gets adopted (just check our 120mmx570 DM13, DM23, DM33, DM43, DM53/63, DM73, fired from Leopards with L44 barrel (Leo 2A4/A5) or L55 (Leo 2A6) and simply check, out to which ranges you can destroy a T-90 or an Armata frontally with them.

[TSe419E]

5 hours ago, Grenny said:

Would be nice to have the Az, elavation indicators in the Leopard 1 modelled, for exactly this purpose

For M60s, too.

[P Lakowski]

https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/2021/02/some-details-about-romor-era.html