UK IFV Warrior, new infomation.

[Backis]

narwan said:

the question is not whether we want a flawed representation or none at all...


Just adding to HEAT armor will, due to the fixed code of the game, IMO, do a lot more damage to realism than good.

Narwan

Err...

Yes, that is exactly the question you're answering here, and your POV is that it shouldn't be represented.

I can live you having that POV, please live with me not sharing it.

[narwan]

Thank you for putting words in my mouth but I prefer my own.

Off course you are entitled to your POV, unfortunately you seem to have been able to miss just about every point I made. And no, it is not 'exactly the question' I'm answering, and no, my POV is not that it should not be represented. Just actually read my post and you'll see what I did say.

[JaM]

Narwan, any AP round is enough against APC with SLAT! All AT weapons in your list (exept FFAR maybe) will be stopped due to SLAT armor,as they have fuze in the tips, so they will be uneffective.With ERA you will stop even heavy ATGMs,Molotovs are working differently, you could destroy even most armored tank with them in close assault. Mayor difference (in real) between SLAT and ERA is that SLAT will be effective even after hits to the same spot, ERA not.

[JaM]

With add on +33 HEAT armor you will punnish only old HEAT weapons, not modern rounds, that will have not problem with it,AP armor will be the same. I think that this is the best simulation of SLAT armor, without code changes.

[narwan]

Jam:
Again, many of the lighter and older guns have no AP (or sabot) rounds. The bmp-1 's main gun will have little effect for example.
I don't think flamethrowers, FAE weapons, explosives packs, improvised bombs and gun rounds will be stopped by SLAT and these are all used as AT weapons.

It's also not just a question of whether other rounds will still be able to penetrate, but also one of range. AP rounds of the older and lighter guns will have not much actual penetration left at the longer ranges which are now common for armoured combat. If they hit a vehicle at an angle in particular they often won't be able to penetrate with AP rounds where they would have been able to take out the vehicle had they used a HEAT round.
Newer rounds will also have problems, the higher the HEAT armor, the less chance of actually penetrating. Having a HEAT penetration rating higher than the armor value does not garantuee penetration.

There's also the question of whether and how it will work in combat conditions. Others have mentioned that it won't be able to stop all of the rounds it is supposed to protect against (RPG's for example). That means some will destroy these vehicles. So from that realism point of view if you model it via heat armor values the armor value should be less but close to the penetration values of these weapons. Or you should greatly increase the chance of hitting a weak spot for these vehicles to mimic some of these rpg rounds getting through. But that would make them more vulnerable to other AT weapons too.

There are indeed significant differences between SLAT and ERA, but just adding to HEAT armor doesn't do justice to realisme either. Using 'ERA' values for the game might come closer to reality, maybe not. But I think it's at least an option to consider IF you'd want to model SLAT as it may be the less unrealistic option within the available game mechanics.
Short of a new armor value specific for SLAT it may not be able to effectively put it in the game without these unwanted side effects. It wouldn't be the first thing which doesn't fit within the limits of the game. There is for example just 1 regular and HEAT value per armor side while the actual thickness often varies on such a side. The lower front hull of tanks is usually less well armored for example than the upper front hull.
While I would like to see as many options and new inventions included in the game, there isn't room for everything unfortunately.

Last point, and a new one; will the addition of the SLAT have an effect on other game stats? I'm thinking speed in particular. There is the additional weight which might reduce speed, or possibly other payloads (troops, ammo, etc) if one wants to keep below a weight limit.
Also the increased dimensions could make the vehicle more unwieldly and more difficult to manouvre. That too is represented in the speed rating. Should this (or other values) be modified too? Just asking, 'cause I don't know.

[PlasmaKrab]

Those gun types affected often have either a fairly weak AP round (not much use at medium and long ranges UNLIKE the HEAT round) or are only equipped with HEAT

That is alas untrue. Many coutries are still using and designing advanced light guns.
Look at the modernized Scorpion-90, AMX-13/90, V-150 with gun, or more modern things like SIBMAS-90, ERC-90, Piranha-90...
You have lots of quite modern AFVs with good small-caliber AT guns. Even 76 or 60mm rounds will have a laughable HEAT pen, but quite good APFSDS rounds.

I guess slat armour can be represented by a slightly downsized HEAT uparmouring, say between 20 and 30, to minimize the virtual armour bulk encountered at high angles (however, do as you want, you will still have armour ratings >1000 at very high angles).

With such a value most old or new light-caliber tank rounds can be counted as ripping throught the armour without damage, as Backis pointed out. And I fear such weapons could really be encountered by SLAT-armoured vehicles, even in the near future, since the thing seems to become a standard of the allied kit. Even though might tanks would be surprising, even insurgents could dig out medium AT guns or RCLs.

[narwan]

PlasmaKrab said:
That is alas untrue.

Not quite. The fact that some modern light guns are being developed with good AP and sabot rounds doesn't change the fact that there already are many guns/units out there which don't have that and that come (mostly) with HEAT rounds.

You should also remember that the performance of AP and sabot rounds decreases significantly at the actual modern combat ranges, unlike that of HEAT rounds. There will be a certain range at which these SLAT vehicles with increased heat-armor will be (depending on angle) immune to both the HEAT and AP/sabot rounds of certain guns where in reality the HEAT rounds would still be able to destroy them.

[PlasmaKrab]

You're right, these things are bound to encounter some older-style light guns, were it only in the game, that is what I pointed out saying that simulating slat will have us screwed up both ways. Consider just that there is one small (small catergory of weapons behaving not-quite-accurately regarding reality) and one big (not taking SLAT armour into account at all) drawback.

Since no one of us speaking here designs the game himself, we plain players have to make compromises...

What I meant is that even though old 90mm guns have nothing better than HEAT, some actually do have. And even old gun can be fitted withmodern ammo, which is way cheaper than building new tanks. Look at the new sabot rounds for the T-55 guns, for one thing.

Anyway, those old rust heaps will be stuck against modern far-reaching forces, so what? Isn't that the point? As you point out, at modern combat ranges, they will have barely a chance of scoring a hit, let alone a kill.

Look at it this way: you have some Red forces with old M-47 or M-24 or anything facing some Stryker-slats integrated to a modern task force. At long range they will blaze away at the Strykers without doing any harm and get busted in one turn. Anyway at 'Javelin range' their HEAT round will have lost so much KE that they will fal off and should et stuck in the slat anyway.
At short range, they will have more use of their AP rounds, crappy as they might be, and could be able to bore through all slat, composite, ceramic, stell, spall liner or whatever.

So you have both sides at top realism!

And you can also consider the cae of top huts, against which the slat is no protction at all, and which happen more frequently than one may think.