Possibly. I took this into account when using my formula as it is an approximation, not an exact. It’s roughly between 1/3 and 2/3. I have rounded this up to error as my formula does not account for the extra material that comes up from the plate, just a flat surface. The overapproximation accounts for the added material that makes the mine protection plate’s walls.
1 Like
To me this is too low.
Depending on how effective a “shot” is, that is extremely cheap.
I agree, the aspro tiles being 40kg is about 1t total. LFP block is probably 1t considering the old ERA LFP weighed over 1t
Remember that this is a rough approximation by creating a perfect rectangular object, and shaving off percentages of the objects calculated weight to simulate its non-rectangular shape and the materials savings that would incur.
The calculations aren’t designed to show how heavy the side plates are exactly, it is simply to provide a rough estimation on which value is the closest to our expected 12.3t mass of the TES package.
In no way am I saying it is 2.07T exactly.
The reasoning is that it’s more believable/realistic to have the kit weigh closer to 2.07T than compared to Aluminum which requires almost 7T of additional weight.
Steel is more reasonable and falls closer in line with our expected weight ranges.
The ASPRO-HMT bricks weigh 40KG each, there are 13 bricks per side, 26 total.
40 x 26 gives you 1040KG which is 1.04t
Assuming the frontal plate is also 1t, that leaves you with 300KG to install the rather lightweight slat armor, ECM and radio equipment.
I’ve given myself a half ton margin or error given I was not shaving off exact dimensions for the shapes, so ~800KG available to install everything. More than realistic.
Now compare this to Aluminium. You have 6.71t spare.
ASPRO-HMT is 1.04t
LFP is 1t
You are still left with approximately 4 Toyota Corollas in weight for a radio assembly, ECM, and slat armor.
No way.
The point of the document is to illustrate that steel is closer. Not that these are the exact values. Don’t get hung up on the actual numbers, they are ballpark figures to see which is closer to 12.3t
2 Likes
Appreciate your passion and dedication to the game and us as players. Glad you see you keep everything fair regardless of the nation.
4 Likes
Which I disagree with, 1T sounds too low
Remember that Legwolf calculations ignore all the other changes, like for example lighter drive wheels
I know the reduction of mass is not gigantic, just an example of omitted thing
1 Like
You’re getting hung up on exact values. This isn’t a matter of “this value is exactly 1t” or not.
it’s that the weight of the steel plates closer matches the expected weights of components than aluminium.
Unless you mean to suggest the LFP block weighs in excess of 3 tons, which I disagree with.
This reminded me of how I tried to prove to the developers that they did not take into account the penetration of the L23a1 projectile depending on the gun. I did the calculations based on the game data.
The L23a1 and L26 projectiles are on the (chelli mk3) L11A5 gun and on the (chelli 2) L30a1, L26 on the L30a1 penetrates 4.7% more. But why is the penetration of the L23a1 equally independent of the gun?
“” It is not a mistake, there are not enough documents confirming that this is the case"" :))))))))))))))
It’s still the same gun with the same length. L30 was stronger to withstand the force of the larger and more powerful charge.
The difference in penetration is so small that it seemed to me that it was not an increased charge.))))
The UFP composite is smaller and weighs 1.5 tonnes on challenger 1…
I think Britian has a bit of a history when it comes to over-engineering things to imrpove longevity and reduce maintenance.
They also do like to do some future proofing as well. Just because it might not have gotten a shell with significantly improved pen/ larger charge. doesnt mean they weren’t contemplating one.
6 Likes
You can argue that the L23A1 armor-piercing rounds used on the L30A1 tank gun use a different propellant to improve penetration
I understand that the L23A1 exported to Oman uses a different L18A1 propellant than the standard L6A1 propellant (originally used for the L29A1 armor-piercing training projectile).
Although Gaijin can also argue that the Challenger 2 used by the British themselves did not use the L23A1 armor-piercing projectile with a changed propellant.Xd
I wonder why the spall liners of the Challenger 3’s turret were removed and why we have to wait for the “big update” to have spall liners. The UK always seems to be the last to receive updates, which is kind of annoying. This report is interesting; the guy just had to share the Challenger 3 layout for Gaijin to acknowledge the lack of spall liners. Isn’t that ironic? Why are spall liners being introduced only now?
Challenger 2(All) + Challenger 3(TD) Missing Spall Liners // Gaijin.net // Issues
1 Like
Always has been always will be, only this update have we received a competitive jet, not to mention the light tanks…
British tax