Tanks - Armored vehicles customization

[Strike_NOR 898]

19 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Actually while SLAT was designed to defeat RPGs it doesn't increase effectiveness off RPGs or HEAT weaponry at all

 

You are missing the point. Besides the first video showcases slat armor doing its job. The RPG hits between slats, disabling the fuze. So the warhead doesn't detonate at standoff range  (as can be seen in the video) but rather too close, so the shaped charge cannot form.

 

The two lower example videos are grid-style armor and due to their structure the air-to-metal ratio can be higher than conventional SLATs, increasing their chance against RPGs. 

 

If in any of the SLAT or Grid style examples, the tip were to touch the slat or grid, it would cause the RPG to detonate at standoff distance as normal, but further from the main armor. This allows the shaped charge to develop even more and be more efficient than if it hit the side of a vehicle without slats.

 

 

Ideally, the RPG HEAT warhead would be better if the rocket nose cone was way longer (increasing standoff distance) but then the weapon becomes difficult to handle in the field, so a compromise is made, and the rpg nose cone is as long as it practically can be.

 

Standoff distance is Alpha Omega in HEAT warheads, and further away is often better (look at Tow 2B, NLAW etc in top attack. These are several meters away from target when detonating, yet super effective - and costly)

[scavenjer 112]

10 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

You are missing the point. Besides the first video showcases slat armor doing its job. The RPG hits between slats, disabling the fuze. So the warhead doesn't detonate at standoff range  (as can be seen in the video) but rather too close, so the shaped charge cannot form.

 

The two lower example videos are grid-style armor and due to their structure the air-to-metal ratio can be higher than conventional SLATs, increasing their chance against RPGs. 

 

If in any of the SLAT or Grid style examples, the tip were to touch the slat or grid, it would cause the RPG to detonate at standoff distance as normal, but further from the main armor. This allows the shaped charge to develop even more and be more efficient than if it hit the side of a vehicle without slats.

 

 

Ideally, the RPG HEAT warhead would be better if the rocket nose cone was way longer (increasing standoff distance) but then the weapon becomes difficult to handle in the field, so a compromise is made, and the rog nose is as short as long as it practically can be.

 

Standoff distance is Alpha Omega in HEAT warheads, and further away is often better (look at Tow 2B, NLAW etc in top attack. These are several meters away from target when detonating, yet super effective - and costly)

Air is very good at defeating HEAT* the space is enough for the HEAT to lose effectiveness significantly.

Edit: *

[Strike_NOR 898]

No. Contrary to popular belief, the slats work by protecting the piezo electric fuze of the rpg so that it detonates too close.

 

Post

 

Just read this post, it has some graphs that show for missiles with a built in standoff range, the penetration increases with increased distance up to 1 meter. Before losing effectiveness. Most SLAT armor is at approx 50cm or less from the main armor. Which means it actually makes the rpg hurt you more if it strikes the slats with the fuze first.

 

 

Dont worry it's a common misconception.

[scavenjer 112]

1 minute ago, Strike_NOR said:

No. Contrary to popular belief, the slats work by protecting the piezo electric fuze of the rpg so that it detonates too close.

 

Post

 

Just read this post, it has some graphs that show for missiles with a built in standoff range, the penetration increases with increased distance up to 1 meter. Before losing effectiveness. Most SLAT armor is at approx 50cm or less from the main armor. Which means it actually makes the rpg hurt you more if it strikes the slats with the fuze first.

 

Dont worry it's a common misconception.

That's a Reddit post, the RPG-7 and most other RPGs are optimised for their fuse to warhead distance, meaning that the warhead has optimal penetration if it's initated at the distance of where the fuse is located.
It would be quite silly to design an RPG so it's less effective when it works as it should vs when it hits SLAT armour.

Yes the way SLAT is designed it will stop the RPG7 from functioning properly but the space is also quite important as that extra space helps to defeat any EFP.

 

An EFP can only penetrate so much steel or air for that matter.

If an RPG has 600mm of RHAe penetration it will gradually lose penetration the more air it has to go through, not as fast as if it has to gro through solid steel ofcourse.

[Strike_NOR 898]

It's a good reddit post, and thanks for pointing that out. An EFP is not the same as a shaped charge (RPG). Explosively formed penetrator creates a slug (projectile) while shaped charge focuses the explosive pressure into a narrow point, basically hydrodynamically (in terms of physics) forcing its way through material. 

 

Like I said. The RPG cant have a 50cm standoff because the rocket would be impractically huge. 15cm standoff is NOT optimal for the RPG, but just enough to penetrate most armor. If you increase this range a certain amount, the penetration capability also increases as per the chart in my last post.

 

I also have way more credible sources to this but the reddit post was well written and accurate, that's why I chose it.

 

If you are not convinced, ask anyone with experience that is not related to SLAT manufacturing/promotion.

 

Rpg's are being developed with a second impact fuze that will detonate if the cone is pushed back (hits slat). This will make slat armor virtually obsolete against this new rpg type.

 

In WW2 slat/skirt armor was more successful, due to poor HEAT designs. HEAT shells from tanks were spinning (rifled barrels) and this destabilized the jet, meaning increased standoff = less penetration.

 

But these are modern times friend...

[lex__1 422]

This video shows the test of RPG-7, how the cumulative jet of the RPG-7 cumulative grenade works. Two armored blocks of glass, at a distance greater than the theoretical work of the cumulative jet, are pierced through.

 

 

 

[scavenjer 112]

Just now, lex__1 said:

This video shows the test of RPG-7, how the cumulative jet of the RPG-7 cumulative grenade works. Two armored blocks of glass, at a distance greater than the theoretical work of the cumulative jet, are pierced through.

 

 

 

Yes, as I said, air won't be as effective as steel, and armoured glass won't be as effective as steel either... however, any material including air will eventually defeat HEAT.

The penetration is always given in pure RHAe, which arguably is outdated for modern MBTs....

[lex__1 422]

19 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Yes, as I said, air won't be as effective as steel, and armoured glass won't be as effective as steel either... however, any material including air will eventually defeat HEAT.

The penetration is always given in pure RHAe, which arguably is outdated for modern MBTs....

There is one circumstance ... On the video, we see the work of the formed jet on the first block of glass. The grille on the vehicle is designed to destroy the grenade before it triggers and forms a cumulative jet. With a successful collision with the lattice, the projectile can not form a full-fledged cumulative jet. For this reason, the grating is used instead of a flat sheet of steel. The probability of destroying a grenade before the fuze is triggered. When the fuse passes between the grille (will not turn on), and the grill will begin to destroy the grenade.

It is necessary to assess the probability that the fuse will hit the pice of the grill and form a cumulative jet.

[R3vo 2654]

3 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

It would also be good if there are some vehicle performance effects to using the Slat armor, like lower acceleration, lower top speed, maneuverability, etc.

 

I am trying to think of reasons why a player would NOT apply slat armor, if it was a free choice in a mission.

That is a very valid point. Right now you would simply add all things to a tank because it looks badass and has no negativ side effects.

 

The design choice here is very doubtful. Even games like battlefield did that better by having slots which only allow one type of "upgrade" and therefore force the player to choose carefully. But then again, there is no vanilla system to change the "upgrades" ingame on the fly.

[scavenjer 112]

53 minutes ago, R3vo said:

That is a very valid point. Right now you would simply add all things to a tank because it looks badass and has no negativ side effects.

 

The design choice here is very doubtful. Even games like battlefield did that better by having slots which only allow one type of "upgrade" and therefore force the player to choose carefully. But then again, there is no vanilla system to change the "upgrades" ingame on the fly.

I think there shouldn't be an artificial downside, weight is fairly normal ofcourse but I'm not sure they can even do that seeing how a jet with 6 bombs turns just as fast as one without them.

[Strike_NOR 898]

@R3vo there has been an epic discussion about pros and cons of SLAT armor ^^.

 

To summarize: they primarily aim to defeat the RPG-7 (most common anti tank weapon in modern asymmetric warfare). They create a probability of denying RPG-7 from functioning. About 50-70% chance of success. However, in the case of failure to stop them, they are actually worse.

 

Against most other HEAT weapons, they have little to no effect, with a high chance of increasing the weapons penetration. Therefore this is a natural drawback.

 

It would make sense that players opt for RPG SLATs against third world armies/insurgents and opt for ERA/plain against modern/high tech HEAT weapons.

 

 

[scavenjer 112]

6 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

@R3vo there has been an epic discussion about pros and cons of SLAT armor ^^.

 

To summarize: they primarily aim to defeat the RPG-7 (most common anti tank weapon in modern asymmetric warfare). They create a probability of denying RPG-7 from functioning. About 50-70% chance of success. However, in the case of failure to stop them, they are actually worse.

 

Against most other HEAT weapons, they have little to no effect, with a high chance of increasing the weapons penetration. Therefore this is a natural drawback.

 

It would make sense that players opt for RPG SLATs against third world armies/insurgents and opt for ERA/plain against modern/high tech HEAT weapons.

 

 

Even if RPGs somehow gain effectiveness this would be pointless and confusing to simulate, SLAT would have enough natural drawbacks already: higher cost, higher weight, bigger size.

I would consider SLAT or such things pretty standard issue for most armies, especially in 2035. 

[R3vo 2654]

Why would the RPG7 gain a damage boost if the SLAT armour fails to catch it? Im confused.

[scavenjer 112]

3 minutes ago, R3vo said:

Why would the RPG7 gain a damage boost if the SLAT armour fails to catch it? Im confused.

Yeah, I highly doubt it would, anyway that's not really for this thread.

IMO the APCs have good cosmetic options and I'd like to see some (more) of them on the MBTs

 

[R3vo 2654]

18 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Yeah, I highly doubt it would, anyway that's not really for this thread.

IMO the APCs have good cosmetic options and I'd like to see some (more) of them on the MBTs

 

Would be nice if we could add additional modular armour panels like the Slammer UP already has got.

[scavenjer 112]

22 minutes ago, R3vo said:

Would be nice if we could add additional modular armour panels like the Slammer UP already has got.

Yes, very much this, I'd love to see slammers without sideskirts or something like that.

[Strike_NOR 898]

 

@scavenjer... First off. I think you have made many accurate and great observations, and shown a lot of good, positive criticism towards Tanks DLC. I personally respect and value your opinion and I think you make many great contributions to the devs in terms of feedback, but this right here is not one of them. Actually, you are on the verge of campaigning ignorance. You are taking science, applying your understanding of it and claiming it to be true. 

I have some very good advice for you at this point, and that is to recognize when you are wrong. Do some research, find out for yourself and prove me otherwise if you can. But right here, I am confident you are wrong, and I have both the experience and research to back it.

 

Also, while so eager to debunk my argument, only based on it being a reddit post ...

4 hours ago, scavenjer said:

That's a Reddit post,

 

You absolutely fail to realize that the two RPG videos you posted to debunk my facts....

5 hours ago, scavenjer said:

 

 

 

....are actually made by the SAME GUY who wrote that very reddit post, which is in total agreement with what I have been saying the entire time.

 

Which is that SLAT armor is developed to counter the RPG-7 due to the very way the RPG-7 fuze is designed.

 

And as such, it is NOT effective against an RPG striking the actual bars in the SLAT armor, it actually enhances the focus of the shaped charge JET.

 

To clarify, look at these examples I made specifically for you:

 

Spoiler

This is a typical formation of a HEAT Shaped Charge Jet SCJ:

 

This is how standoff is typically configured for an RPG-7. You can see the beam focuses towards the end, getting narrower and narrower:

 

This is what happens when you introduce a SLAT and the RPG hits the bar, instead of the space between them:

 

You see, the Standoff distance increases, and because the SCJ is like a needle, getting thinner and thinner towards the end, it actually punctures armor better. Of course, it doesn't infinitely narrow down, but it does for another 50cm or so, before dispersing and gradually loosing focus.

 

However, this actually grants the warhead as much as 100mm extra penetration, give or take some.

 

So I hope that clarifies things now once and for all. SLAT is purposely designed to counter the RPG-7 (PG-7VL and similar mainly), because that happens to be the most used AT-weapon by insurgents, terrorists, third world armies etc. This is why you see them on so many modern vehicles, because they mainly fight a war against ill-equipped enemies that frequently sport the RPG-7.

 

It does, due to construction differences, not defeat other HEAT warheads, but on the contrary, increase their effectiveness - just like with the RPG-7 hitting a bar.

 

 

@scavenjer... I have some really good advice for you, and not in a patronizing way. 

 

When I am right, and you are wrong, you are not losing. You are not defeated. You simply learned something new! Finding out you are wrong, learning about it and moving on is a quality most people do not possess today, especially on the internet. I am 30 years old now, and trust me, I am wrong often. Just ask my wife. But more importantly, and relevant, I am even wrong on these forums sometimes. And I'm thankful that we have a positive community that can learn a lot from one another.

 

So please, think about this as we move forward.

THE ACTUAL TOPIC.... and reason why I started this argument is due to something @fn_Quiksilver said back in the day about game balance.

He raised a very good point, something which needs to be addressed: Why would any player chose NOT to use the SLAT armor - seeing that it defeats HEAT, but has no drawback.

 

That's where I used my opportunity, to think about a realistic approach to the issue: Namely, that SLAT/Cage armor is not a countermeasure towards HEAT in general, but the RPG-7. So why not make it so that it slightly increases effectiveness of other HEAT weapons, while decreasing effectiveness of RPG's?

 

As far as I know, these things are made to be lightweight and have MINIMAL influence on vehicle mobility/weight. The only disadvantage I can think of besides the HEAT debacle is worse visibility, harder maintenance access, and probably wider/larger vehicle area. Both of which don't really matter in ArmA that much.

 

So I encourage more people to think of good ways to balance this feature, besides leaving it all to the mission maker.

 

That's all.

 

[scavenjer 112]

41 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

@scavenjer... First off. I think you have made many accurate and great observations, and shown a lot of good, positive criticism towards Tanks DLC. I personally respect and value your opinion and I think you make many great contributions to the devs in terms of feedback, but this right here is not one of them. Actually, you are on the verge of campaigning ignorance. You are taking science, applying your understanding of it and claiming it to be true. 

I have some very good advice for you at this point, and that is to recognize when you are wrong. Do some research, find out for yourself and prove me otherwise if you can. But right here, I am confident you are wrong, and I have both the experience and research to back it.

 

Also, while so eager to debunk my argument, only based on it being a reddit post ...

 

You absolutely fail to realize that the two RPG videos you posted to debunk my facts....

 

....are actually made by the SAME GUY who wrote that very reddit post, which is in total agreement with what I have been saying the entire time.

 

Which is that SLAT armor is developed to counter the RPG-7 due to the very way the RPG-7 fuze is designed.

 

And as such, it is NOT effective against an RPG striking the actual bars in the SLAT armor, it actually enhances the focus of the shaped charge JET.

 

To clarify, look at these examples I made specifically for you:

 

  Hide contents

This is a typical formation of a HEAT Shaped Charge Jet SCJ:

 

This is how standoff is typically configured for an RPG-7. You can see the beam focuses towards the end, getting narrower and narrower:

 

This is what happens when you introduce a SLAT and the RPG hits the bar, instead of the space between them:

 

You see, the Standoff distance increases, and because the SCJ is like a needle, getting thinner and thinner towards the end, it actually punctures armor better. Of course, it doesn't infinitely narrow down, but it does for another 50cm or so, before dispersing and gradually loosing focus.

 

However, this actually grants the warhead as much as 100mm extra penetration, give or take some.

 

So I hope that clarifies things now once and for all. SLAT is purposely designed to counter the RPG-7 (PG-7VL and similar mainly), because that happens to be the most used AT-weapon by insurgents, terrorists, third world armies etc. This is why you see them on so many modern vehicles, because they mainly fight a war against ill-equipped enemies that frequently sport the RPG-7.

 

It does, due to construction differences, not defeat other HEAT warheads, but on the contrary, increase their effectiveness - just like with the RPG-7 hitting a bar.

 

 

@scavenjer... I have some really good advice for you, and not in a patronizing way. 

 

When I am right, and you are wrong, you are not losing. You are not defeated. You simply learned something new! Finding out you are wrong, learning about it and moving on is a quality most people do not possess today, especially on the internet. I am 30 years old now, and trust me, I am wrong often. Just ask my wife. But more importantly, and relevant, I am even wrong on these forums sometimes. And I'm thankful that we have a positive community that can learn a lot from one another.

 

So please, think about this as we move forward.

THE ACTUAL TOPIC.... and reason why I started this argument is due to something @fn_Quiksilver said back in the day about game balance.

He raised a very good point, something which needs to be addressed: Why would any player chose NOT to use the SLAT armor - seeing that it defeats HEAT, but has no drawback.

 

That's where I used my opportunity, to think about a realistic approach to the issue: Namely, that SLAT/Cage armor is not a countermeasure towards HEAT in general, but the RPG-7. So why not make it so that it slightly increases effectiveness of other HEAT weapons, while decreasing effectiveness of RPG's?

 

As far as I know, these things are made to be lightweight and have MINIMAL influence on vehicle mobility/weight. The only disadvantage I can think of besides the HEAT debacle is worse visibility, harder maintenance access, and probably wider/larger vehicle area. Both of which don't really matter in ArmA that much.

 

So I encourage more people to think of good ways to balance this feature, besides leaving it all to the mission maker.

 

That's all.

 

OK I'll keep this post purely about arma 3, IMO if you implement it being worse vs most HEAT and only better vs RPG7 It'll be regarded as useless if people even realise that's how it works, vast majority of people especially in PvP use the RPG-42.

 

Making it better vs all HEAT but it being "consumable" and weighing the vehicle down ontop of being much larger and potentially awkard in urban areas are enough of drawbacks.

Besides it's up to mission makers to implement it in a way that fits their desires.

[dragon01 902]

Actually, while RPG-7 is the most obvious application, any other RPG or ATGM that doesn't go over the armor would be affected in a similar way. This depends on the exact fuzing options, but if the warhead depends on bumping its nosecone into something to detonate, cage armor will help. Another thing it can do is damage the shaped charge itself, if this happens before explodes, the jet will not form properly. It doesn't matter against tank shells, which have casings too hard to be affected, but against a soft-skinned missile or a recoilless rifle shell this kind of protection is very much effective. It isn't a product of modern era, either, similar designs were seen as far back as WWII (although back then shaped charges were quite fiddly things that were easy to disrupt).

 

As for balance, well, cage armor is not weighless, despite usually being pretty light. The camonets don't cover it, too, which makes it kind of an either/or choice (no point using a net when the cage sticks out like a sore thumb). TBH, I'm fine with it being left to the mission maker.

[Hvymtal 1251]

OKAY, I think we've gone just a little bit off-topic, here. Having read through everything, I think all of us very intensely understand how HEAT works IRL in depth and how it actually interacts with slat armor. Personally, I feel like the effort required to model it as Strike insists it works outweighs the realism benefit on the other side, and that it would make the addition of slat armor irrelevant eye candy instead of a useful tactical function. There is a very good reason that BIS uses the word "authenticity" rather than "realism."

 

Realism sucks. Realism is getting hammered by artillery at every possible opportunity and then just getting tactically squished once the enemy believes you've been tenderized by 155 enough. Realism is "WTF we have slat armor but we got blown up by one rocket are you f***ing kidding me!?!?!" Authenticity is creating an environment that takes all of the cool bits of realism but for fun's sake avoids the crap. The fact that slat armor is completely useless after one rocket or 105/120mm HEAT hit is a sufficient compromise IMO for the tradeoff that slat is more effective than it really should be. Furthermore, Slat can be damaged by other means in a way that it wouldn't be IRL; shooting 30mm HE at the target to weaken the slat and allow more rocket damage to be done is a valid tactic. Peppering it with machine gun fire to weaken it is a valid tactic. Blowing all of the armor off with a HE cannon round is a valid tactic (though I agree it probably should be limited to a certain extent, at the same time 120mm HE does produce an alarmingly large shockwave and could have that effect). The compromise that they went for makes for much richer gameplay than "WTF we have slat armor and we got blown up by one rocket are you f***ing kidding me!?!?"  

 

Besides, this is really a more appropriate topic for the Armor Enhancements thread, not the Vehicle Customization thread. I feel like self-moderation is not strictly the correct term here since nobody is flinging poo at each other nor is anybody about to (thank you very much for keeping it civil ), but in that particular spirit...

 

To go back to the problem with slat armor purely from a gameplay perspective:

Quote

The Vehicle Blackfish seems to be unable to transport the Marshall APC now.

As the only APC it can lift, this would be a rather large blow to gameplay.

 

 

I do feel like this was unintentional and a design oversight. It does indeed affect gameplay and the vehicle really should be able to be airlifted without the armor in place. I'll see about filing a bug report.

[dragon01 902]

The thing is, realism, more often than not, does make for a good gameplay. It might be computationally expensive and difficult to develop, but generally speaking, getting closer to a realistic simulation works very well in a game like ArmA. It's never as simple as "pound them with arty and roll over". Assuming you even have artillery, it takes one well-dug trench system to shield the infantry being shelled and you're in for a nasty surprise. Tanks, for that matter, aren't destroyed by HE artillery nearly as easily as they are in ArmA (there are special cluster rounds designed for dealing with tanks). Not to mention to fire at something you need to know where it is and where it will be after 30 or so seconds it takes for the rounds to arrive. It really isn't an answer to everything.

 

There's an important matter to remember, though. If you introduce realistic problems, you have to introduce realistic solutions. Weapons and tactics don't stay "undefeated" for very long in real life. Artillery? Fox holes, bunkers, and rapid movement (or, you know, counterbattery fire with your own arty). HEAT rounds? APS, reactive and cage armor. Yes, sometimes tanks will be MKed (rarely exploded outright, RPGs don't have that sort of penetration) by a single rocket, but then the trick is not to allow the enemy to launch a rocket at you in first place. For that purpose you've got TI, machine guns and a commander look around for launcher teams and vehicles. We could also use a repair system, for when it does happen and you need to fix your track after dealing with the schmucks who blew it up.

[Hvymtal 1251]

And of course APS is being pioneered as well, Abrams SEPV3 will apparently include the option for Trophy, and I wouldn't be surprised to find some form of APS show up on Challenger 2 CLEP, or on a modified Leopard 2A7. It's all about cherry-picking the right things to keep and what to ditch. Realism for good gameplay's sake, not realism for realism's sake. (As an aside, I'm wondering if BIS are doing APS and are just keeping quiet about it until they stage the premium content. They said the Dev Blog will come hopefully before the end of the month, so either 28th or early march in my estimate. Maybe even next monday)

 

I just tried out the Marshall thing, I'm not having problems with it being airlifted even with the armor on. Perhaps you did the infantry transport by accident?

[jarrad96 1940]

Wouldn't SLAT be balanced ingame simply due to size? It makes the vehicles (particularly some of the APC's) much wider and thus they are more of a pain to drive around in, particularly in urban areas, streets or forests due to the prevalence of trees?

 

While it may give you additional RPG protection against insurgent forces or smaller nations that lack Titan/Javelin type missiles with top-down attack or heavier warheads, it would also make the vehicle an actual larger target (until the SLAT is destroyed) and, depending on how the vision ports work, make the driver's visibility significantly worse. 

[Hvymtal 1251]

The vision ports are working funky, not really displaying things on the outside that would cause a blindspot possibly to avoid frustrating gameplay. On the flipside, none of the vehicles' SLAT would not appear to affect visibility out of the periscopes to any significant degree anyway. 

[martin_lee 33]

I am wondering, would adding slat armour increase the collision box? I couldn't check for now. If it does, I think it would be a compromise.