Vitasalato

Chieftain MK.5/4 MBT - New Top tier UK tank

24 minutes ago, Vitasalato said:

 

Oh well I'm doing a matter of balance since the beginning, both for another 8.0 MBT in the lineup and a shell that can compete with HEAT-FS performances. 


I agree, we do need another tier 5 brit tank. any varient of the Mk.5 will do, gaijin hinted at the mk.5 on twitter.

We could also do with the DU round for the mk.3 as an unlockable shell )

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Nope said:
Spoiler

Thing is, L11A5 doesn't seem to have much issues from what I can gather from player feedback here. The only reason for L23 APFSDS to be implemented is if there's a threat so bad that it would require its introduction. This means armor significantly superior to T-72A standards given that the dreaded M111 Hetz only penetrated around the same as L28 APDS, but with far better slope coefficients. The ammo itself would favor the introduction of 125mm platforms, which are mostly composite MBTs. If the Chieftain is falling behind, it's because its mobility is not good enough as the best at tier 5 tend to be fast and reload quite fast as well, therefore an engine upgrade is good enough considering that it will have mobility slightly behind a T-62 at this point (though very close IRL because the T-62's drivetrain is kinda mediocre). This is similar to RL, except with potential flaws in slope coefficients, penetration, armor and post-penetration because Gaijin, and even then the flaws are well-documented already since Gaijin is reluctant to change such stats for the better anyway. Monobloc APFSDS was not really made to counter steel armor, it was made to counter composite as earlier rounds had penetrators small enough to the point that they destabilized quickly, while monobloc has a penetrator that occupies the vast majority of the projectile's length. This is why L11A5 with its 400mm or so of penetration at point-blank struggled to go through a T-72 Ural at 500m while M111 Hetz went through a T-72A and a T-80 up to 800m or so despite losing out on more than 50mm penetration against steel. Since we are close to that kind of penetration, people will beg for composite MBTs (which Gaijin will mess up because they can't even get steel right). Also, since most sources account for one kind of KE protection and not all types such as APDS, steel APFSDS, BM-3 type, 3BM-22 type, 3BM-42 type, M735 type etc, Gaijin will also mess up the balance, not to mention the amount of flawed data on monobloc penetrators too since the values I estimated for L23 APFSDS are considered 2 km penetration values according to outdated sources such as Collins's page before it got shut down.

 

Listen, I'm not denying the fact that it's a case of he who shoots first in tier 5. The problem is that that shell is just begging for some level of armor. BM-3 APFSDS is designed to defeat a level of armor achieved by NATO tanks in the 1960s such as going through a Chieftain's turret or the UFP of an M60A1 at range. Same goes for L15 APDS, L28 APDS, L52 APDS (which Gaijin did not implement even if it would have theoretically balanced the whole tier 5 meta in terms of KE without the introduction of the Leopard 1A1A1) and HEAT rounds. When you introduce a shell that was designed to knock out T-80Bs, everyone will beg for a T-80B, an M1 Abrams, a Leopard 2A0 and a CR 1: all which Gaijin will mess up because they don't know how armor works and which will introduce a meta that is inherently flawed, but that no one will know how to balance out. You think people will find good sources that will trump Gaijin's like now? They won't, because composite armor values and penetration values change so frequently that Gaijin's shenanigans will be even harder to call out. They're already difficult enough to call out on their double standard on giving the KT flawed armor and forgetting about the high hardness coefficient of almost every WWII Russian tank that's even in the very source they use, believing that the Maus's turret is cast while it is bent RHA or navy grade steel, still standing on their one source for M60 turret armor despite even factory blueprints being shown... What do you think will happen when they bathe in the nuanced area of composite tanks? It can only lead to chaos.

 

 

 

 

Look, about the whole discussion about composite armor there is a BIG no from Gaijin. Not only the game engine would require a complete redesign to make it work, but as you said - and I agree with you - finding the correct historical sources about this tank would be hard and in same case impossible.

I would exclude any discussion about possible future tanks with composite armor. Is more likely that Gaijin introduce reactive armor - that can be supported by the game engine - rather then composite armor. And in my opinion we won't see any big technological advancement in ground forces for quite a bit of time. Naval forces are WIP for all 5 nations, Italian tree is WIP, very likely French Tree will come. Is a lot of work, and I don't think that Gaijin have in mind to rebuild their entire engine just to support a dozen of tanks with composite armor. Those tanks even if asked will be rejected.

 

Second at all, yes the L23 is going to be the most powerful KE shell in game, but yet I don't think that is going to be so powerful to break the game. It will pen everything just like HEAT-FS/ATGM already does. 

 

I can't disagree on the fact that might be pretty hard to find the correct information on this shell. Hopefully Gaijin begin a company might be able to ask and obtain information and documents that we can't access as simple person.

 

52 minutes ago, Nope said:

I also find it strange that you apparently draw the line based on what the game apparently needs right now. The issue is that the ammunition you suggest is never going to be balanced even if its values are accurate to RL. The suggestions I propose mean that as long as people keep slapping Gaijin with historical documents, the game will slowly begin to rebalance itself as it has more historical accuracy and realism. This applies to HESH rounds too should they underperform, and last I checked nearly every tank at tier 5 has armor angles that are in HESH's slope sweet spot. Failure to restrain is exactly what messed up WT GF in the first place, so why not agree at stopping the cycle? The potential for balance is already there, but it starts with restriction and no unnecessary time traveling.

 

With the information and the experience that I have in ground forces right now, I'm confident that this shell won't break the balance. In the worst case, if is too powerful and breaks the game a shell can be removed much easily then a vehicle. 

 

For the rest, yes there are much improvement to be done. Armor degradation is probably the most important, but also Regenerative steering (currently passed to Devs). For shell performances we can submit documented bug reports if we have the chance, and in any case stick over at what 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see the issue with the L23.

Itll have a pen close to, or the same as most HEATFS shells and ATGMS in game with one big difference that wont break the game...

it doesnt have the after penetration affects that heatfs or ATGMs have...

 

Itll pen the same, just wont wipe you out with ease...
 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, HyJetV said:

I dont see the issue with the L23.

Itll have a pen close to, or the same as most HEATFS shells and ATGMS in game with one big difference that wont break the game...

it doesnt have the after penetration affects that heatfs or ATGMs have...

 

Itll pen the same, just wont wipe you out with ease...
 

..and it would be able to pull of a lot that HEAT-FS can´t eg. killing tanks behind obstacles where HEAT would explode prematurely or having a much higher V0 and thus be easier to aim. The post pen damage effects aren´t that different, actually i think APDS creates more spall than HEAT and both ammorack pretty reliably.

 

Adding the L23 to the game without having composite armor would be the same as adding tandem warheads without having ERA. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That

 

Also, if you want british HEAT... use HESH... (would be neat if L11 got better performing HESH than L7...) Also, the L15A3 APDS does not have problems with T-10M's UFP from what I've heard....

 

@vita

They said a big no to any kind of guided ordnance :facepalm:

 - you know, dunno how you, but I've always been taught to leave the backdoor always open ;)

That being said, plain mk.5 is good enough for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

^ That

 

Also, if you want british HEAT... use HESH... (would be neat if L11 got better performing HESH than L7...) Also, the L15A3 APDS does not have problems with T-10M's UFP from what I've heard....

 

@vita

They said a big no to any kind of guided ordnance :facepalm:

 - you know, dunno how you, but I've always been taught to leave the backdoor always open ;)

That being said, plain mk.5 is good enough for now.

 

Id gladly accept the first Mk.5. brits need another top tier tank.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HyJetV said:


I agree, we do need another tier 5 brit tank. any varient of the Mk.5 will do, gaijin hinted at the mk.5 on twitter.

We could also do with the DU round for the mk.3 as an unlockable shell )

 

The mk.3 cant carry APFSDS rounds so no L23 or L26 (which is the DU round)

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wrags said:

..and it would be able to pull of a lot that HEAT-FS can´t eg. killing tanks behind obstacles where HEAT would explode prematurely or having a much higher V0 and thus be easier to aim. The post pen damage effects aren´t that different, actually i think APDS creates more spall than HEAT and both ammorack pretty reliably.

 

Adding the L23 to the game without having composite armor would be the same as adding tandem warheads without having ERA. 

 

I would like to remind you that all solid shot already in game can penetrate some light obstacle. The L23 have a velocity around 1500 m/s against the 3BM3 with a muzzle velocity of 1650 m/s.

 

Also many seems to forget that the main advantage of composite armor is to dramatically improve the resistance against HEAT rounds while begin still effective against KE rounds.

 

As for Reactive armor what you say is completely untruth. Reactive armor is effective against HEAT just like is effective against APDS-FS.

 

3 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

@vita

They said a big no to any kind of guided ordnance :facepalm:

 - you know, dunno how you, but I've always been taught to leave the backdoor always open ;)

 

Feel free to open a thread in General discussion and ask "what BVV said about composite armor in War Thunder". 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<< Also many seems to forget that the main advantage of composite armor is to dramatically improve the resistance against HEAT rounds while begin still effective against KE rounds. >>

No, some of us seem to forget that adding a shell designed to penetrate 130mm RHA at 68 degrees from over 2 km is pointless. There might as well be things more broken than that, ATGM's, cough cough, but once the soviet MBT's get ingame, L23 at 8.3 would make any balancing impossible, as one side would cry that brits have L23 at 8.3 - and you would have all tanks stacked around the same BR - and the other side would cry that if they have L23 at 8.3, they want something better at 9.3. What might that be? DU rounds for Challengers... All balance broken for years, GG.

 

One rule of game-making - think ahead of time. Gaijin has their right to go back on their words - they said no to composite tanks years ago. Does not mean we cannot have them in this winter. Last time BVV was asked about T-64 he did not say "there won't be any composites", he basically said that "T-64 would need tanks up to 1980's for balance purposes (which is currently not in plans)". That would be Chieftain mk.5/4.

 

But it would need them at reasonable BR's. Not around 8.0 - that is Mk.5's role, with L15A5.

 

Another golden rule, never take what people say for granted ;)

 

EDIT: Not to forget that the soviet APFSDS rounds are underperforming, especially BM4.

Edited by Koty1996

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Koty1996 said:

No, some of us seem to forget that adding a shell designed to penetrate 130mm RHA at 68 degrees from over 2 km is pointless.

 

And again. Do I really have to list you all the HEAT-FS and ATGMs that are capable of equal if not superior performances?

 

1 hour ago, Koty1996 said:

but once the soviet MBT's get ingame, L23 at 8.3 would make any balancing impossible, as one side would cry that brits have L23 at 8.3 - and you would have all tanks stacked around the same BR - and the other side would cry that if they have L23 at 8.3, they want something better at 9.3. What might that be? DU rounds for Challengers... All balance broken for years, GG.

 

Of what soviet MBT are yo even talking about? DU round for Challengers, what? Do you understand that composite armor won't be introduced in this game? Forget about it!

 

1 hour ago, Koty1996 said:

Not to forget that the soviet APFSDS rounds are underperforming, especially BM4.

 

If the soviet APFSDS are underperforming collect your documentation and submit a Bug Report

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vitasalato said:

As for Reactive armor what you say is completely untruth. Reactive armor is effective against HEAT just like is effective against APDS-FS.

 

Not exactly. Kontakt-5, Relikt, Malachit, Nozh and some specific Chinese ERA? Sure, those do stop APFSDS to a certain degree. ROMOR, Kontakt-1, Blazer, whatever ERA is used in the TUSK package? Those don't do squat against KE rounds. You might as well pick slabs of steel at this point, as those will at least add some armor. However, reducing 500mm SC penetration down to <50mm is not possible with simple slabs of steel.

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is stopping devs from doing so?

They used to say that no guided ordnance will ever be added - here you go - get ATGM's! Now they only claim that no anti-aircraft guided missiles will be added - that is SAM's and AAM's.

 

It may not be tomorrow, it may not be next month - but once time will come, mark my words, and you'll be one of the first people sitting in T-72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Vitasalato said:

Of what soviet MBT are yo even talking about? DU round for Challengers, what? Do you understand that composite armor won't be introduced in this game? Forget about it!

.... Any MBT up to later T-80's.

L15A5 is balanced against them. (It can kill them all at ranges up to 1500 m.)

L23 is already an overkill. (What was it again? 2600 m?)

 - if they had to meet them from the get-go, it would be laughable, to say the least.

 

To be balanced, they would be meeting L15A5 at one end - and L23 at the other end. Because if L23 is introduced now, it is going to be used against early T-54's, Maus - and other stuff with ridiculous lethality. If it does not bounce, no armor at current T5 is going to save you, the ammount of spalling would also be ridiculous,... do I need to go on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vitasalato said:

 

I would like to remind you that all solid shot already in game can penetrate some light obstacle. The L23 have a velocity around 1500 m/s against the 3BM3 with a muzzle velocity of 1650 m/s.

 

Also many seems to forget that the main advantage of composite armor is to dramatically improve the resistance against HEAT rounds while begin still effective against KE rounds.

 

As for Reactive armor what you say is completely untruth. Reactive armor is effective against HEAT just like is effective against APDS-FS.

 

The 3BM3 is an APFSDS round not a heat shell  my comparison was refering to the V0 of APFSDS compared to HEAT-FS not to other APFSDS. Yes sure APDS can pen "light" obstacles like train carts and kill tanks behind it. For APFSDS  its the same but not for HEAT wich will explode before it reaches the tank. I just wanted to point out that AP(FS)DS can do things that HEATFS cant and thus does not need to have the same penetration as HEATFS to be Compeditive.

So what is your point?

It is untrue that tandem warheads wehre developed to defeat ERA? interesting.

Edited by Wrags
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

What is stopping devs from doing so?

 

Apparently the Game Engine can't support Composite armor.

Even if it could, have you tried to find the armor values for tanks like Challenger, M1 Abrams, T80 etc.?

Most of this tanks have Classified armor value and composition. Gaijin would be forced to rely on prevision and supposition, starting to create a whole new tier based on supposition rather then facts. Knowing the passion and the dedication of Gaijin for realism this is never going to happen. Unless this tanks and the relative armor get declassified and shown to public.

 

13 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

They used to say that no guided ordnance will ever be added

 

As for this statement I'm pretty sure that they were specifically talking of drop-and-forget Air-to-Air missiles.

 

3 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

.... Any MBT up to later T-80's.

L15A5 is balanced against them. (It can kill them all at ranges up to 1500 m.)

L23 is already an overkill. (What was it again? 2600 m?)

 - if they had to meet them from the get-go, it would be laughable, to say the least.

 

To be balanced, they would be meeting L15A5 at one end - and L23 at the other end. Because if L23 is introduced now, it is going to be used against early T-54's, Maus - and other stuff with ridiculous lethality. If it does not bounce, no armor at current T5 is going to save you, the ammount of spalling would also be ridiculous,... do I need to go on?

 

Just because the L23 is capable of killing T80s, doesn't mean that the must be added in game because of this shell. I wonder why there are no problems with the HOT ATGM with 800mm of pen. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

.... Any MBT up to later T-80's.

L15A5 is balanced against them. (It can kill them all at ranges up to 1500 m.)

L23 is already an overkill. (What was it again? 2600 m?)

 - if they had to meet them from the get-go, it would be laughable, to say the least.

 

To be balanced, they would be meeting L15A5 at one end - and L23 at the other end. Because if L23 is introduced now, it is going to be used against early T-54's, Maus - and other stuff with ridiculous lethality. If it does not bounce, no armor at current T5 is going to save you, the ammount of spalling would also be ridiculous,... do I need to go on?

L15A5 can penetrate up to 1500m considering original T-64 armor load-out.

original 80mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 20mm RHA  = ~360mm RHAe (known resistance equivalent to 130mm/68)

in case of T-72 it changed from original to:

1976 version: 60mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 50mm RHA = ~400mm RHAe (144mm/68?)

1983 version: 16mm HHS + 60mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 50mm RHA = ~452mm RHAe (160mm/68?)

Edited by arczer25
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<< Apparently the Game Engine can't support Composite armor. >>

:facepalm:

You just put two different armour layers over each other. Look at Leopard A1A1... look at the hull front - what do you see? Addon armor... ie two layers of armor without gaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

L15A5 can penetrate up to 1500m considering original T-64 armor load-out.

original 80mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 20mm RHA  = ~360mm RHAe (known resistance equivalent to 130mm/68)

1976 version: 60mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 50mm RHA = ~400mm RHAe (144mm/68?)

1983 version: 16mm HHS + 60mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 50mm RHA = ~452mm RHAe (160mm/68?)

exactly.

the 76 version is used on T-80B and... iirc.... T-72A, the rest uses the original layout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Koty1996 said:

<< Apparently the Game Engine can't support Composite armor. >>

:facepalm:

You just put two different armour layers over each other. Look at Leopard A1A1... look at the hull front - what do you see? Addon armor... ie two layers of armor without gaps.

i don't know if you know, but in game layered armor is bit broken and offers less resistance than it should...

using in game slope modifiers.

in case of M4A3 Jumbo: 38.1mm plate on 63.5mm plate:

63.5mm/47 plate give 1.36x modifier against 85mm APHEBC = 87mm

38.1mm plate 1.05x with only is 40mm

total 127mm...

 

now using basic layered armor formula 63.5mm+(38.1mm*0.7)=90.17mm

T/D ratio calculated for 101.6mm plate

101.6mm plate give modifier 1.546x

90.17mm * 1.546 = 139.4mm

 

now using WW2 ballistic slope modifiers

using proper ones give

for spaced 64 + 38. 63.5mm/47=95.25mm, 38.1mm/47=47.6mm.  in total= 142.85mm

for layered 153mm

 

see difference?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

i don't know if you know, but in game layered armor is bit broken and offers less resistance than it should...

using in game slope modifiers.

in case of M4A3 Jumbo: 38.1mm plate on 63.5mm plate:

63.5mm/47 plate give 1.36x modifier against 85mm APHEBC = 87mm

38.1mm plate 1.05x with only is 40mm

total 127mm...

 

now using basic layered armor formula 63.5mm+(38.1mm*0.7)=90.17mm

T/D ratio calculated for 101.6mm plate

101.6mm plate give modifier 1.546x

90.17mm * 1.546 = 139.4mm

 

now using WW2 ballistic slope modifiers

using proper ones give

for spaced 64 + 38. 63.5mm/47=95.25mm, 38.1mm/47=47.6mm.  in total= 142.85mm

for layered 153mm

 

see difference?

according to dev notes, this should have been fixed in 1.63

 

nevertheless, the fact that game uses wrong modifiers is long known. It has nothing to do with the engine's ability to take layered armor.

Edited by Koty1996

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, arczer25 said:

L15A5 can penetrate up to 1500m considering original T-64 armor load-out.

original 80mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 20mm RHA  = ~360mm RHAe (known resistance equivalent to 130mm/68)

in case of T-72 it changed from original to:

1976 version: 60mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 50mm RHA = ~400mm RHAe (144mm/68?)

1983 version: 16mm HHS + 60mm RHA + 105mm STEF + 50mm RHA = ~452mm RHAe (160mm/68?)

 

The values for the T-72 Ural/T-64A seem to be against APDS. The T-72A has a resistance against monobloc APFSDS lower than 300mm.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.