Listy

Member
  • Content count

    1,606
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

1,238 Outstanding

3 Followers

About Listy

  • Rank
    Group captain
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,131 profile views
  1. A premium with no armour ,and its fuel tanks and ammo rack exposed? The contentious was a finalised design, they even made a life sized mock up of it. Not entirely sure how the Comet one fits into the program as it appears to have nothing in common, apart maybe the suspension. I'd have to ask.
  2. tanks/vehicles

    Yes, no, maybe... The issue you instantly run into is its current equipment so any hard data is impossible to obtain. As any FOI is going to get filed under "bin", and all documents which list it are still restricted. Thought I'd lucked out when I saw a file marked "30mm RARDEN testing data." It was a 1cm thick document, most of it was tables as well... on toxicity tests. Bugger. However you can get snippets of information from the requirements and some documents from the early development life, and they paint a pretty respectable picture. The ammo listed in the opening post is also all over the place. Part of the issue is that the same rounds have been described in different ways for different purposes.
  3. Its just comparing Malkara Vs 183mm over ranges. There's a entry on there for likely hood of Kill, and all entries are set to 1. Its not going to provide you anything interesting.
  4. Yup. That was on the table as well, and was all 1's.
  5. Well I saw a table which had a "probability of kill" agaisnt an IS-3, and a range for the 183mm. Every entry was 1. You hit something with it, it dies.
  6. We've met your friends before... Here they are suggesting that we not bother with all the expense of developing the L11 120mm for the Chieftain, when they already have the answer.
  7. Sort of. I have, based on evidence I've seen, a working theory. I have plentiful data on the APDS, and I've passed them on to an engineer friend who is also a massive ammo nerd. And he's boiling it all down. I've not myself waded through several hundred pages of tabulated data. The other issue is war time testing was a bit dodgy, with massive doses of "not made by us" syndrome. Heck I have testing reports on the same gun, by the same nation, which vary from "couldn't hit a city if you were in its centre" to "Nail a gnat at 500 yards, on the wing". So to hold up one document and say "this proves X" is to be sorely disappointed, and make yourself look like a bit of a plank. Of course the fun starts when there's only one document in existence...
  8. FV3802 vs FV3805. Two different SPG's.
  9. Looks pretty real to me. and weirdly a logical successor to the Archer from game play style. There was also a 5.5" armed version. The trailer can be ignored.