Nice, makes it a lot clearer. But I’m assuming we’ve already tried using this as a source to buff Varma and romor a already….
Hmmmmm… that does seem a bit much but equally if that were so being invulnerable to mango above 1500m would be welcome
A bit much? It’s out out 1500 and it is composite not era.
The problem is that finding any other source claiming it can stop it is, hard. IDR is the only source claiming it can stop 125 from 1500m, no information in what scenario. Retrofit state it is effective against AFPSDS and HEAT, no hard values. THE VICKERS TANKS: FROM LANDSHIPS TO CHALLENGER stated it can stop 30mm APDS and that is were i went with my report, trying to buff it for over 82mm of KE.
I’m assuming that one of these is what’s used for the turret cheeks, I haven’t checked CR1 plates much and I can’t check in-game atm
Spoiler
For a little clarity, KE/CE modifiers of composite armour aren’t fixed, gaijin have a spreadsheet of armour effectiveness for different parts of different vehicles, and the composites are adjusted to meet those values.
For example, the RHA backing plate for the CR2 turret cheeks was changed from 50mm to 38mm a couple weeks ago, and alongside that the KE/CE modifiers were adjusted to make sure the cheeks didn’t lose effectiveness overall.
Yeah, was just surprised is all. But I was doing it because I was told the side composite was either chobham or Varma and I thought I could get a rough look at its protection values by doing this. But knowing more about nera and composite it just pisses me off gaijin actually think it should be 30mm…. Nera is made to stop chemicals as well as kinetic and yet in game it’s glorified era with it being able to be destroyed just like it instead of being shot off like the Leo 2a5 composite cheeks.
Hey, it would be nice to have a topic dedicated to posting resources about British equipment. A collection of links, images, books etc. that could be useful at some point. This way, one could search for something or view the topic to find info.
Just to give an example, I found an article from Barr & Stroud celebrating the company’s 100 years. It tells a bit of the history and about Barr & Stroud equipment installed on the Challenger 1 and Chieftain. It’s material I’d like to share, but perhaps it wouldn’t be so useful beyond being a source of knowledge. Having several posts like this in one place would be nice.
This topic here serves for that as well, but discussions also take place here. I was thinking of a place just for sharing resources.
There seems to be a few threads operating on a common theme, eg. the CR1 thread, the CR2 thread, the Chieftain thread, but a unified British thread might be good.
Hello chaps what the heck is going on here?
After doing a bit of digging it’s because the APDS still hasn’t been updated to the demarre formula, and still uses preprogrammed estimates (If you want to have a look, it’s here under the “30mm_hs_831_APDS” heading). Probably beacause they’d have to admit pretty much all the low calibre APDS in game are massivily fudged and implmented very incosistantly.
Honestly the best reply I’ve received. I’m starting to see just how much spaghetti is behind the curtain.
Welp, looks like I just gained a new obsession for bug reporting (for the next three weeks).
There was probably no reason to fix it. But now Britain has a good performing auto-cannon, APDS firing light tank. It will probably get fixed soon just to nerf the Fox
But what do you mean fixed? The performance of the L14A2 is governed by manually entered figures and corresponds closely with the best known penetration data (40mm @ 40° @ 1500m, various sources).
The performance of the 3UBR8 should be 25mm @ 30° @ 1,500m according to Rosoboronexport, the state exporter of those rounds, but in-game it will penetrate 70mm!
Whatever “fix” or formula has been applied, it gives the wrong output.
Like L27A1, They’ll use a universal standard way of setting pen that is “fair” for all nations which will end up with it underperforming compared to currently.
The actual reason is pretty simple, while the HS831 APDS and L14A2 APDS are fairly different, both the HS831 and Rarden share HE and SAP rounds, so its eaiser to assume they’re the same and use data from both to extrapolate performance than try and figure out the details of both separately.
Given they should be man in the loop guided, there is 0 reason they should share this limitation. Even if they are going to F-up their implementation there is no reason to further limit the missile.
Well sadly we’re talking about britain here, try explaining to gaijin how adding unique features to other nations would be a good thing.
My biggest reason for being chapped about them botching the TV Martel is because it should have been the path for them to backport man in the loop to all the weapons in game that should have it. It’s not a unique, one off development for a single weapon in game, it should have been a correction to multiple at once.
Do any Russian/Soviet weapons use Man in the loop?
if no, theres you answer
if yes, someday it will come