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.
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.
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.
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.
Love the F22 shooting down the J20 with a missile at like 200m away.
Hopefully that’s not what their doctrine says about using missile.
The good point is its great to simulate dogfigth without the danger in flying into your opponent.
But it seems to have multiple caveat.
How heavy is this thing? If the computer is on your head and you have to pull 9G , gl to the pilot.
Is it truly usefull in BVR (where modern combat would probably take place)?
Like at 50/60km aways, you’re not going to see the ennemy anyways (“Beyond visual range” : it’s in the name). Making the ennemy visible would be useless, for BVR training atleast you need real oponent which you can lock up with your radar/ irst or do it all on a simulation.
Maybe the thing integrate some kind of BVR simulation on the onboad computer with fake radar solution but then the whole visualitation part is useless.
Yeah the F-22 v J-20 is hilarious but honestly i’m Unsure about alot of it, outside of the fact its already in use with the USAF,
I imagine theres alot more capabilities than is shown in the video, with the WVR stuff being shown because its the easiest way to show its capabilities to the average joe so to say.
Since you are in the cockpit it can just be the display portion which is quite light. Lighter than current HMS systems… a cable can run to the interconnect for the helmet to the aircraft systems. Like being hard wired with a VR system.
AR / VR systems have actually made huge leaps in progress in making helmet mounted sight and display systems cheaper, lighter, more rugged, and more reliable for military applications. So much so that we have been testing them on tanks as well.
Anyone know gaijins stance on adding apds for our 57mm (and maybe the 75mm but I’m not sure we ever issued or had an apds round for it) and 17pdr on the firefly? Seems a bit silly giving Americans their super shot which was their answer to needing more pen. Would make the Cromwell mk1 a menace and give the Churchill mk3 the little buff.
