Yeah but we are not on about that. Specific or similar things like reload should allow it to be applied. We have seen bug reports with common sense mentioned and used be accepted before.
1 Like
Well no because 4 of the other 20 or whatever rounds gets moved to the ready rack. If you are not firing from the ready rack should be 5secs maybe or 5.25secs.
1 Like
Then prove it,
Simple as that, as indicated by the Bug reporting manager, if you can prove the gun is empty then the report would be acceptable, I really don’t understand how the “Gaijin hates Britain” crowd expects Gaijin to give them the benefit of the doubt. But that’s neither here or there, you only provided 1 secondary source, for a bug reports Gaijin wants two secondary sources minimum, preferably more.
Have we?
They wont accept that the FLIR on the PIRATE has the same FoV as the IRST
No ones said gaijin hates britain in this conversation. There is no documentation or book, that will prove the gun is empty before reload. All we have is videos and common sense. We have proved it with common sense, we have proved it with videos. But they are not accepted.
It has already been openly commented by the devs that the wt reloads are not historical and are completely balanceable for the simple fact that they are not a fixed value
How are we going to determine a fixed value for a human being or a machine? If a Challenger loader reloads the tank in 2 seconds, then everyone else can? No, right? We still have the human factor such as fatigue, mood, MBT speed, terrain, ammo rack conditions, and we can use the same argument for autoloader tanks for the simple fact that there are several types of modes, speed, and ammunition positions
So literally for balancing, gaijin takes a fixed but realistic value and places it
Unfortunately gaijin stopped using it as a balancing tool
“How do you determine a fixed reload rate”
Perhaps by the loader qualification requirement? That we have?
Thanks to Sebbo_the_Plebbo for sending me the second Challenger brochure which states the 1314 ps (1296 bhp) figure for the CV12 engine.
Considering there are not one, but two, sources stating the increased horsepower hopefully gaijin consider the accepted report for ALL Challenger tanks.
Also, interestingly, this source states the Challenger 1’s top speed as 65kph (instead of the usual 56kph)
11 Likes
That’s sexy
1 Like
Typo
It’s not a typo.
Finally can compete with Leos and M1s in top speed
2 Likes
Untrustworthy manufacturer/operator propaganda or some other excuse.
Nothing ever happens
1 Like
That’s almost certainly a typo.
It is almost certainly not a typo.
Several other British tank documents state two different top speed for vehicles.
One is “practical” top speed and the other is the maximum possible level road speed. As you can see in the Vickers Mk.1 documentation where both 31.45mph and 35mph are listed as the top speed with different metrics. Neither are wrong.
Therefore its not unusual for two speeds to be listed in Royal Ordnance documents, with the nominal top speed being higher than other speeds stated. However, as it is level road speed it is a valid top speed to have ingame.
People really need to stop getting bogged down with attempting to give our vehicle the most understated statistics possible while most other nations will rightly go for what is accurate yet gives the vehicle its highest potential ingame.
5 Likes
So now we will wait another few years when gaijin fix HP and top speed.
A few years?
Thats a bit optimistic
But the Challenger 1 tank manual and the Challenger 1 Acceptance Report both state that the maximum nominal road speed on level tarmac is 56 km/h.
For example from the Challenger 1 acceptance report:
Spoiler
So which option do you think is more likely?
- Every other primary / secondary source about Challenger 1 is wrong
- The guy writing that brochure accidently pressed the keys in the wrong order turning “56” to “65” (as far as typos go that’s about as easy as they come).
I know which one seems more likely to me…
1 Like
This brochure by ROF states up to approximately 60kph, so the 56kph figure isn’t universal to all Challenger documents. If 56kph is the hard top speed limit, why not just state 56kph?
Just as this document has two horsepower ratings listed (BSS and DIN), it is possible for the vehicle to have multiple “top speed” numbers due to the speed being measured in different ways. Neither are wrong.
In my eyes assuming values are typos if they differ slightly isn’t a good way to go about it. If it were 96 kph then I’d be more open to it being a typo. These kind of marketing brochures aren’t designed, proof-read and printed in 10 minutes.
The other brochure already states a vague top speed range of 60kph, 65kph is likely the upper limit and 56kph is likely the more modest limit which may be imposed for maintenance/safety reasons.
In my eyes, I believe we should take all (reasonable) values listed in primary sources as true and go with the best value for ingame performance. This is an approach that keeps the statistics both accurate and as competetive as possible. This is what is done with almost all vehicles ingame.
2 Likes