Jump to content
41 minutes ago, Loongsheep said:

British and Japanese tanks have been the underdogs of tier 6. Guess the tide will turn with Chally 1 and STC-1 or Type 90.

 

I wonder which sekrit dokument has the values of Chobham )))))

 

It is the version with 70mm steel LFP though ))))

So hull down or get rekt.

Anyway since thread is clearly being censored I may as well learn more about the challenger 1 through questions.

 

Sheepy are you sure the lower front plate is 70? It seems pretty wimpy for a modern tank.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maverick966 said:

Ehmm... what were you saying?

 


Ah yes, that's a very specific diagramI'm sure we can make accurate estimates from a picture which doesn't even specify the grade of steels and plastics used in the array's construction.

 

Edited by *AllahHuAirlines
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MockingClone said:

Maybe I'm wrong here but wasn't the L26 round not really all that great? I think compared to similar tanks, the Chally 1's L26 HESH lacked behind compared to the APDS-FSDU rounds.

 

Well british guns lacked behind everything else as soon as 120mm or 125mm smoothbore became standard.

An APFSDS will always perform worse when fired from a rifled gun and 2 part ammunition limit the maximum length of the rod which directly correlate in a lower penetration value.

Edited by Alzoc
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, *AllahHuAirlines said:


Ah yes, that's a very specific diagram

 

Experts are able to obtain data from this

Edited by Maverick966
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

I see that the nay-sayers are having a meltdown right now...

 

... did you really just say this?? Ok, let’s break this argument down: 

 

Let’s say there were no Tiger II(H) documents that survived the war, and all Tiger IIs were destroyed via combat. Now, the front turret LOOKS like armor that’s 160-200mm thick, but we don’t know because we have no physical proof and no way to prove it. 

 

This is almost exactly like adding modern tanks with heterogeneous armor arrays: you have no physical or documented proof that the armor array is X mm thick, or what it’s made of. All you’re doing is guessing. And do you really trust Gaijin to accurately guess the performance of a tank with no documentation when they continually mess up tanks with a plethora of documentation (looking at the Conqueror and M60...)? That’s like saying: 

 

“You failed your tests, but we’re going to give you a diploma anyway, cause we want you to have it.” 

 

That’s absurd reasoning, absolutely illogical. I do not support these tank, and I will vehemently continue to detest Gaijin adding these tanks until they so prove they can accurately model ALL nations tanks, not just their own. 

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alzoc said:

 

Well british guns lacked behind everything else as soon as 120mm or 125mm smoothbore became standard.

An APFSDS will always perform worse when fired from a rifled gun and 2 part ammunition limit the maximum length of the rod which directly correlate in a lower penetration value.

british guns lacked? lol what have you been reading, 120mm British Royal Ordance guns were known to be some of the best guns out there and still are today, there reload/accuracy was unmatched

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 9
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the game as a whole isn't realistic, the armour layout and thickness of each of the vehicles in-game are, in general, supposed to be. When they are not, we can at least find the data that describes how the armour of a vehicle is laid out and how thick it's armour should be and then we can create a bug report on how to correct the in-game vehicle's armour; whether Gaijin acts on it or not is a different matter. With these new vehicles and their classified armour layout and thickness we won't be able to find data about them and create bug reports if they are incorrect.

 

No point arguing about this now though, this is the way War Thunder is progressing and I for one will enjoy driving my Challenger I around the battlefields - no matter how broken it may or may not be :D.

Edited by Time4Tea
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, *AllahHuAirlines said:

Whether Gaijin listens to that or not is another issue. 

 

But that's a huge issue totally related to what we are talking about here, which cannot be ignored.

You can't just lose your sh*t over addition of Challenger 1 and ignoring the fact, that knowing actual armor measures or shell performances is as good as knowing jack sh*t.

 

I just see no difference with Gaijin in knowing the data and not knowing. Because I can eventually wipe my arse with the data.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are going on and on about armor, but the more important part is that we still have no fire control systems in the game. Even if they placed a 2018 tank into this game it would not perform as it theoretically should, so having some make-believe armor in the game is really not that dramatic. I do agree that for the tanks that the armor values are exactly know, there should be fixes applied to represent the proper armor states and strive to achieve authenticity, but for these "modern" tanks, it really isn't that much of a big deal, to me personally, if they just increase some value based on partial speculations - I mean the general theorem of composite armor characteristics and compositions are known and not a super duper secret - the exact armor and compositions of specific tanks are classified, but if you go with the baseline of what could be possible and just tweak the stats, it's fine in my book, it's a game after all, not a hardcore simulator.  

Edited by SaekoB
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maverick966 said:

Experts are able to obtain data from this

 

What data can you obtain when there is nothing more specific than 'steel-plastic-steel' in your images?

Nothing, that's what. Unless you know the actual type of steel and plastic used, you can't obtain squat from that.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Darkshadow86 said:

Anyway since thread is clearly being censored I may as well learn more about the challenger 1 through questions.

 

Sheepy are you sure the lower front plate is 70? It seems pretty wimpy for a modern tank.

 

Yes it is, I don't have a source at hand but it's pretty much common knowledge.

Pretty much all modern tanks (bar a few exceptions) have a very weak LFP composed of only thin RHA, the problem with the Challenger 1 (and 2 as well) is that those LFP are pretty damn huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pokenaut7 said:

Judging by your Account AllahHuAirlines, you spent more time talking about the game than in the game. you probably don't have a single rank 5 tank unlocked so why are you talking about this? 

 

wait what ? what does this comment adds to this discussion regarding implementing a vehicle which has its key characteristics still classified ? 

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaekoB said:

People are going on and on about armor, but the more important part is that we still have no fire control systems in the game. Even if they placed a 2018 tank into this game it would not perform as it theoretically should, so having some make-believe armor in the game is really not that dramatic. I do agree that for the tanks that the armor values are exactly know, there should be fixes applied to represent the proper armor states and strive to achieve authenticity, but for these "modern" tanks, it really isn't that much of a big deal, to me personally, if they just increase some value based on partial speculations - I mean the general theorem of composite armor characteristics and compositions are known and not a super duper secret - the exact armor and compositions of specific tanks are classified, but if you go with the baseline of what could be possible and just tweak the stats, it's fine in my book, it's a game after all, not a hardcore simulator.  

that is part of the issue, Chobham is still a trade secret by the British Government so any 'baseline' figures could be massively off because no one should in theory have access to this trade secret without some serious power in politics. and even then, if any information was disclosed you would find yourself in prison for disclosing trade secrets

Edited by TheCloop123
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pokenaut7 said:

Judging by your Account AllahHuAirlines, you spent more time talking about the game than in the game. you probably don't have a single rank 5 tank unlocked so why are you talking about this? 

 

Ad hominem. Nice, was wondering how long it would be before someone stooped to statbashing.

I have USSR tanks up to Rank VI, British tanks up to Rank VI, Japanese tanks up to Rank V, US tanks up to Rank IV, German tanks up to rank IV, and French tanks up to rank IV on another account. Maybe you should do your research before making baseless claims.

Edited by *AllahHuAirlines
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Are we getting the L26 APFSDS-DU round?

probs not. its still mostly classified 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maverick966 said:

Ehmm... what were you saying?

5a85b6a2abe38_ChobhamType1.thumb.png.72f

 

1374113379_2865253585_969efb2e29_o.jpg

1439750170-fv4211-aluminum-chieftain-bur

 

Lol, what is this garbage? 

 

Do you really think this is “Chobham”? No, this is early prototype “Chobham” known as “Burster”, which is nothing like Chobham except for the reactive arrays. Chobham includes these reactive arrays, along with passive layers like steel and aluminum. 

 

And as stated several times: there are no values in those “documents”, they’re just pictures. So in no way could (should) those be used as sources for “Chobham”. 

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


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

 

Ah hominem. Nice, was wondering how long it would be before someone stooped to statbashing.

I have USSR tanks up to Rank VI, British tanks up to Rank VI, Japanese tanks up to Rank V, US tanks up to Rank IV, German tanks up to rank IV, and French tanks up to rank IV on another account. Maybe you should do your research before making baseless claims.

You said on another account.

Anyways back to the subject at hand. Why can't everyone WAIT just a few days to see how Gaijin works this one out.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCloop123 said:

british guns lacked? lol what have you been reading, 120mm British Royal Ordance guns were known to be some of the best guns out there and still are today, there reload/accuracy was unmatched

 

Nope, there where considered powerful at some point because they were pretty much the only 120mm gun available.

Other guns available to NATO were rifled 105 mm.

 

So a rifled 120mm will perfom better than a rifled 105 mm not arguing there.

But a rifled 120mm will always be worse than a smoothbore 120mm penetration wise.

Accuracy is about the same whether the gun is rifled or smoothbore.

 

The firepower of the Challenger 2 is pretty bad by today's standard because it still use a rifled gun with 2 parts ammo.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There s needs to be an official answer to this by the devs themselves. Again, war thunder s main selling point was that it was attempting to follow some real world data. This is the turning point from that principle. 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alzoc said:

 

Nope, there where considered powerful at some point because they were pretty much the only 120mm gun available.

Other guns available to NATO were rifled 105 mm.

 

So a rifled 120mm will perfom better than a rifled 105 mm not arguing there.

But a rifled 120mm will always be worse than a smoothbore 120mm penetration wise.

Accuracy is about the same whether the gun is rifled or smoothbore.

 

The firepower of the Challenger 2 is pretty bad by today's standard because it still use a rifled gun with 2 parts ammo.

you might want to do some research on the L11 variants of the 120mm guns, because they seriously were not lacking compared to other nations, especially with the ammo they could fire at the times they were produced.

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Are we getting the L26 APFSDS-DU round?

 

No, since this APFSDS was designed for the L30A1 gun and not the L11A5.

 

But there will certainly be the BD26 Jericho.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Lol, what is this garbage? 

 

Do you really think this is “Chobham”? No, this is early prototype “Chobham” known as “Burster”, which is nothing like Chobham except for the reactive arrays. Chobham includes these reactive arrays, along with passive layers like steel and aluminum. 

 

And as stated several times: there are no values in those “documents”, they’re just pictures. So in no way could (should) those be used as sources for “Chobham”. 

It looks like we got a tank historian and expert over here. Please enlighten us on where you found that his source of information is incorrect. And do you have any better sources since you claim his to be garbage?

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...