Jump to content

None of the M1's tested had DU installed as that feature is purely non-export.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


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

I really din't expect reading something like this from a tech mod:016:

So you are imply that official British documents have been manipulated to get the CR2 picked?

That's pretty ludicrous

We might as well say all russian sources are propaganda (probably more likely as it was a totalitarian regime after all) but then we'd get kicked off the forum. Figures

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dantheman66 said:

Yes that's what I'm saying. Chances are the values gaijin has come up with are utter bs.

They would have to be, just simply putting a request in for information of this calibre takes months of 'getting approved' this information can not simply be 'acquired' in like 2 weeks. so adding the time of modelling, and acquiring information (my guess) is (if they genuinely) got documents (which I doubt) they would have started this around the time the CH1 was introduced in-game.

 

It would be far easier for them in both money and time, to use books as there source (cross reference) that with what other tanks they want in and balance the protection around that.

Edited by TheCloop123
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dantheman66 said:

That's pretty ludicrous

We might as well say all russian sources are propaganda (probably more likely as it was a totalitarian regime after all) but then we'd get kicked off the forum. Figures

 

I mean that is nothing special from the average member, but as a tech mod I expect higher standard... like at least try to be objective and unbiased.

I do notice his forum point/post ratio seem a little below average

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the detail Gaijin have available on this tank

 

Armour.

Vague reference from the Haynes book in reference to the M1A2 (and Swedish cannot be used as accurate comparator as the armour package the US offered did not use DU)

Firepower
No info whatsoever on MV of L26A1/L27A1 rounds for the L30 rifle.

 

Automotive

Irrelevant, Gaijin can't model anything newer then clutch-brake steering

Fire Control
WW2 era still

 

9 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

1) Yes, the swedish papers are true

2) not only M1A2 had "very simmilar" armor to M1A1HA, it had EXACTLY the same armor package ("1st gen DU")

M1A1HA and M1A2 used different DU armor. M1A1HA used First generation Heavy armour package. M1A2 used 2nd Generation Heavy Armor package.

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


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

 

Or maybe... the source contradicts what Gaijin has given us? 

We are at the point where we can not contradict Gaijin ... I want to present my error report ... Answer by Gaijin: We need sources and official documents to validate his error ...
Unless your father is James Bond or the prime minister, good luck to get the documents.

medal

Share this post


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

1) Yes, the swedish papers are true

2) not only M1A2 had "very simmilar" armor to M1A1HA, it had EXACTLY the same armor package ("1st gen DU")

The M1 used in the test was without DU though, Sweden wouldn't buy DU tank/ammo as that was just a few years after Chernobyl (heavily affected Sweden).

That is possibly why the US also offered a "upgrade package" for the export M1A2 armor.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SgtStryker said:

Loonsheep, all you have to do is look at the history to get an idea.

You mean MoD bidding for new weapons?

Cheating to let domestic weapons win, yet somehow ended up buying Czech Bren gun, American Browning HP, Sweden's Bofors 40mm, American F-4 Phantom and WAH-64 Apache, Germany's Unimog... etc?

 

Or entirely something else;)

Edited by Loongsheep
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Firepower
No info whatsoever on MV of L26A1/L27A1 rounds for the L30 rifle.

not 'accurate' but this the only thing I can find on the L26/L27 ammo (from steelbeast) not reliable but take your choice of sources.......... (there is none :D)

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data

 

120mm L30: L26A1 CHARM1 APFSDS 3500 510 1575 1991  
120mm L30: L27A1 CHARM3 APFSDS 3500 610 1675 1999  
120mm L30: L28A1 APFSDS 3500 630 1720 2000s
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheCloop123 said:

not 'accurate' but this the only thing I can find on the L26/L27 ammo (from steelbeast) not reliable but take your choice of sources.......... (there is none :D)

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data

 

120mm L30: L26A1 CHARM1 APFSDS 3500 510 1575 1991  
120mm L30: L27A1 CHARM3 APFSDS 3500 610 1675 1999  
120mm L30: L28A1 APFSDS 3500 630 1720 2000s

Forget about anything SB related, you would laugh when you look that their armor values:016:

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Forget about anything SB related, you would laugh when you look that their armor values:016:

I know, its why I dont use them. but this is legit the only 'info' I can find on these ammo types (because there still classified)

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

not 'accurate' but this the only thing I can find on the L26/L27 ammo (from steelbeast) not reliable but take your choice of sources.......... (there is none :D)

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data

 

120mm L30: L26A1 CHARM1 APFSDS 3500 510 1575 1991  
120mm L30: L27A1 CHARM3 APFSDS 3500 610 1675 1999  
120mm L30: L28A1 APFSDS 3500 630 1720 2000s

Steel Beasts just made **** up for the Chally 2 (like the laughable TOGS representation not allowing you to shoot HESH above 2000m)

 

TOGs 1 mounted on the side of the turret shows the capabilty to rotate in its mount so the reticle stays in the center of the screen

 

And Chally 2 TOGS 2 reticle stays in the center of the display when shooting HESH at a target 1xxx meters away, not near the bottom of the screen like SB represents it

 

Edited by RoflSeal
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, DELTACLUSTER said:

 

Alright. A lot of the criticism is based on this little thing here: 

 

  Hide contents

5kNlFQd.png

 

This is the pintle mount which replaced the unloved D-ring mounting mechanism for the loaders MG. And the reason this is relevant, is because it was changed during production and indicates that this is a later variant of Challenger 2. All set? Good, then let's begin. 

 

 

Let's start with 3 obvious things.

 

One: The Challenger 2 keeps the horrible Chieftain engine sound like the Challenger 1 (hearable in the intro of the small video of the devblog). It is really time for an update on this. 

 

Two: The Challenger 2 which was introduced today is a production variant. Therefore, the tank should have the double pin tracks. What we got is the CR1 single pin track which was only featured on some Challenger 2 prototypes. 

 

Three: While early Challenger 2's featured very similar (or the same) roadwheels as Challenger 1, they were soon replaced by the roadwheels with the small holes in them which are part of the Challenger 2's signature appearance. 

 

 

Everything beyond this is purely based on the devblog. We'll see what the CR2 actually performs like when they open the dev server. What I personally see as red flags are the statements that it would share a similar level of protection as CR1. Though this can be twisted around of course as it could either refer to the covered areas or the actual protection. 

 

However, currently it feels a little like the CR2 is going to offer less CE protection than even the M1A1, based on their wording. I know they stated "over 900mm" of protection, but this makes it sound a little like were only a little over 900mm and not significantly higher. Going from the CR2 Owner's Workshop Manual, the CR2 should offer "much better protection" in the CE category with its Dorchester armor. I know it is simply one book claiming this, but if it was actually worse than the M1A1, the British government would have bought the M1A2 as the higher CE protection was a huge factor when they made the decision to go for CR2. 

 

And let's stay with Dorchester for a second. It is nitpicky, but they could have just called it "Dorchester" instead of "newer Chobham". Names are there for a reason. 

 

 

 

 

omani-challenger-2-b.png
???

then again.. who knows what RL variant they used to model it...

 

Edited by dotEXCEL
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense guys but really this version that argues that the M1 at the swedish trials was downgraded is baseless (US DOES export DU for military purposes to close allies). The swedes when they made the ballistic tests they used models made to specification from the tank manufacturers. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


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

omani-challenger-2-b.png
???

It is a Omani Challenger 2.

A number of them seem to have this older type of track, maybe it is better suited for the terrain or they are cheaper (production cost, stockpile)? Dunno but British CR2 usually use double block tracks.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

No offense guys but really this version that argues that the M1 at the swedish trials was downgraded is baseless (US DOES export DU for military purposes to close allies). The swedes when they made the ballistic tests they used models made to specification from the tank manufacturers. 

 

Except on this, you are wrong.   No DU equipped M1 has ever been offered for export period. All export models of M1's are required to have any DU stripped out and replaced with other materials. Not even the Aussie M1's (Which are based off of the HA) have DU.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets speak sound design here: gaijins sounds are bad...
i was helping Point back in the day with Epic Thunder. You wouldnt believe how many sounds they just copy pasted to make development easier... its a mess. hence why im using ETSM

1 minute ago, Loongsheep said:

It is a Omani Challenger 2.

A number of them seem to have this older type of track, maybe it is better suited for the terrain or they are cheaper (production cost, stockpile)? Dunno but British CR2 usually use double block tracks.

i know that... but do you know which CR2 they used to model the IGN model? i do not

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the best I can find in terms of L26 (CHARM 1) and L27 (CHARM 3) are these snippets of information scattered around the internet.

 

Take this with a grain of salt (dont know the accuracy) but both images kinda 'confirm' with one another on the values show for CHARM 1 and CHARM 3

 

Both images are at 2km ranges with a slope of 60 degrees. (one uses LoS) the other does not state (Los) but I suppose at 60 you can somewhat work the LoS out for penetration (and both match somewhat)

 

Image 1 (LoS for RHA) 

Spoiler

2136147516_Inkedgraph2_LI.jpg.f8cf5b8de8

 

Image 2 (no LoS for RHA)

Spoiler

1674839620_Inkedgraph1_LI.jpg.a3e3c92db1

 

No idea if the same person (used image 2) to work out LoS for image 1 but this is all I can find on L26/L27 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

It is a Omani Challenger 2.

A number of them seem to have this older type of track, maybe it is better suited for the terrain or they are cheaper (production cost, stockpile)? Dunno but British CR2 usually use double block tracks.

 

Tbh there may have been multiple slight modifications between 1993 to 1998 which we know nothing about.

Share this post


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

No offense guys but really this version that argues that the M1 at the swedish trials was downgraded is baseless (US DOES export DU for military purposes to close allies). The swedes when they made the ballistic tests they used models made to specification from the tank manufacturers. 

  1. Not the M1 Abrams and definitely not in the early 90s. AFAIK only the latest order from Saudi MIGHT contain DU armor.
  2. Sweden was badly affected by Chernobyl just a few years ago before the trial. Public opinion mattered so it was less likely.
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

lets speak sound design here: gaijins sounds are bad...
i was helping Point back in the day with Epic Thunder. You wouldnt believe how many sounds they just copy pasted to make development easier... its a mess. hence why im using ETSM

Since the universal gun sound change I've also switched back to Epic Thunder, despite all my issues with it. I wish Boris continued development as those engine sounds were the best, and had the gun sounds from ETSM :(

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 

Except on this, you are wrong.   No DU equipped M1 has ever been offered for export period. All export models of M1's are required to have any DU stripped out and replaced with other materials. Not even the Aussie M1's (Which are based off of the HA) have DU.

Nowhere in the documents is stated that the M1A2 being offered was a different "export variant". And not only the numbers in the documents DO indicate a different armor composition on the turret (with DU inserts) than in the hull (good old BRL package as used since the first M1), the "export" M1A2 DIDNT EVEN EXIST by the time of the swedish trials!

medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Nowhere in the documents is stated that the M1A2 being offered was a different "export variant". And not only the numbers in the documents DO indicate a different armor composition on the turret (with DU inserts) than in the hull (good old BRL package as used since the first M1), the "export" M1A2 DIDNT EVEN EXIST by the time of the swedish trials!

this is true: the Test-Rig made by the swedes was made according to US specifications

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...