SRL itself isn’t really the issue, but there is evidence that a 600/1000 config was tested. That is likely what was used Atleast that we know of for now. The hull wouldn’t be changed to 300KE I don’t think. They will just extrapolate the turret composite to the hull and probably get around 400-450m.
1 Like
You think so? I’d hazard the opposite. Similar tanks like the Ariete, Leclerc, and Type 10 should be proof against DM53 to their turret cheeks and upper front plates. The modelling of the Leclerc in-game has its UFP and turret being basically exactly the same thickness, presumably that’s accurate to her real life measurements. Though very light at only 55~ tonnes, I cannot imagine the French would leave her turret and UFP arrays vulnerable to DM53 and comparable rounds. She’s a very expensive tank even when accounting for mishandling of funds, I imagine her composites are slightly more expensive and also, seemingly more weight efficient at the expense of less volume efficiency.
As for the Type 10 which is even lighter at about 48~ tonnes combat-load, she achieves that low weight likely through use of more advanced, more weight-efficient composites than that found on the Abrams SEP V2/Challenger 2/Ariete/Leclerc/Type 10. That would be a prudent assumption considering the composite she dons would have first entered service 15~ years after the composites aboard those tanks. She also seemingly lacks the side turret composite arrays of contemporary tanks and of course seemingly has greater levels of frontal weakspots when compared to said tanks. Then regarding the Ariete, it seems its missing its entire UFP composite armour and side turret arrays in-game - shes’ a 54 tonne tank with really quite small dimensions, armour should be more focused as on Soviet-style tanks at the expense of crew comfort permitting her levels of armour protection akin to contemporary heavier western MBTs.
The Abrams LFP and turret arrays should be made of the same composite, and the difference in LOS thickness is only about 200mm max, 700mm for the LFP versus 900mm for the turret from the M1A1 to the M1A2 SEP V2. In-game and as with the UFPs of contemporary western tanks, I imagine her LFP armour is woefully underperforming. The LFP composite of the M1A1, M1A1 AIM, M1A1 HC, M1A2, M1A2 SEP V1/2 - they all still retain the same protection values for their LFPs provided by the LFP of the original 1980 M1 Abrams, which uses a notably lesser advanced armour composite that was replaced to largely match their upgraded turret composites.
Then the Challenger 2, and in line with allied tanks - her UFP should be about as thick as the Abrams LFP, Type 10 UFP, Leclerc UFP, and Ariete UFP - and similarly able to stop comparable munitions. Compared to an Abrams she’s notably longer and less wider, lesser surface area has to be covered from the frontal arc. At an even heavier weight and using composite that should be as advanced as that found on the SEP V2, I cannot imagine the Challenger 2 frontal protection around her armoured arrays being anything less protected than on contemporary western MBTs.
Well we know the hull met the 350 mm KE minimum protection requirement. And the add-on plate does not seem to be standard fitment on the CR2 (at least the early versions). So that would imply some sort of improvement compared to CR1.
2 Likes
The British evaluation of the M1A1 puts the hull armour at 350 mm KE, and the Swedish evaluation of the M1A2 also puts lists the hull armour as 350 mm KE. That does imply there weren’t hull armour improvements until at least the SEP V1 (I know the Swedish M1A2 didn’t have DU armour, but as far as I can work out the base model M1A2 didn’t have DU in the hull anyway, so the hull armour was probably the same as the US version).
3 Likes
Well, that’s quite interesting… The hull arrays should have been upgraded as per multiple documents from BRL-1 to BRL-2 aboard the M1A1 as with the turret, perhaps those documents used outdated information as with the issue regarding DU.
I otherwise find it hard to believe, perhaps though it was simply too expensive to do so, thought wasteful, and not worth it. Four generations of composite armours upgraded over a short 20 years, versus 2 or 1 leapt through for contemporary tanks minus the Leopard. Alongside other incremental upgrades for other systems aboard the vehicle - comparatively the Abrams has undergone more frequent revisions that would have been costly.
It was intended to be standard for but they gave it improved CA instead which reached the requirement itself. Is that not the timeline we thought?
Going by this book, idk from where it is.
And this
The internal armour is called Dorchester Level 1, and i will go with it, so SRL should apply to DL1, that the plate on the ufp is not a part of, correct?
Please stop trying to nerf the already nerfed Challenger series…
I don’t think anybody is “trying to nerf it”
who is looking to nerf it?
Isnt this suggesting to gimp the turret?
150 out of them were screws changes
2 Likes
That is a mag of the togs, the snail uses mag of the day sight
Again the snail doesn’t make any sense
First Dorchester variant:
Dorchester 2:
Dorchester 2E:
Dorchester 2F:
Still 2F just with front NERA
And finally 2H:
That’s all dorchester packages in this book
3 Likes
I mean, the 1x mag does not exist in game… Thats for example why Cr1 does not have it
It is called 2F late
I will make my Cr2 list, someday, then you will understand all, i hope
1 Like
So the difference between the 2 and 2E is?