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.
But that’s not a definite value it’s an approximate value, and 56 km/h is approximately 60 km/h.
A few possibilities off the top of my head:
People like round numbers
“Approximately 60 km/h” sounds better than “56 km/h” in marketing material
It’s not just that they differ slightly, it’s that 65 is 56 backwards, which is an incredibly easy typo to make.
I can tell you from personal experience that typos slip through the review process all the time in engineering. If you want a public example off the top of my head then just look at this PIRATE brochure which lists the total mas as 8 kg instead of 48 kg:
I know you’re trying to make a point about errors slipping in and not the exact values. However, the PIRATE document is an obvious 100% typo as the values differ wildly (8 vs 48kg).
The 65kph value is possible (it is not unreasonable for a vehicle with ~20 hp/ton to go 65kph) and therefore we cannot be certain it is a typo and shouldn’t instantly assume it is like we (fairly) do with the PIRATE document.
One is absurd, the other isn’t, so they aren’t exactly comparable.
It is reasonable to question it, but other British armoured vehicle documents (eg. Vickers Mk.1) prove that two seperate top speeds for vehicles may be provided in official documents. Therefore, its just as reasonable that the document author may have had two values available and simply chose the higher one, which is still correct.
I was told the 1314 ps value was “just a typo” and it was then found in a second document, we don’t need to miss out on opportunities by doubting everything we see just because it differs from what we’re used to.
Ideally I’d have the whole document, but I dont, and its ultimately up to Gaijin to decide if they want to chose the 65kph value or not.
When are they going to give the Challenger 2 realistic armor? It’s not possible that the TES and OES have added armor that has practically the same protection as the Kontakt 1 from the 80s. Aside from that, mysteriously, the added armor of the TES and EOS provide different protection, with the EOS being worse.
The OES era should basically behaive like Relikt but I doubt and British/South African vehicles will ever have their armour modelled to the same normal game standard
never, Legwolf (and others) put in a ton of work around the TES ERA composition, effective protection, NATO testing etc. but the reports were denied because gaijin have a diagram of a LAV hull (im being facetious, the diagram shows STANAG levels for side protection being tested at 30 degrees from the normal, so gaijin sets the ERA effectiveness based on that. they also include any mounting/backing plates in that which further reduced effectiveness)
The curious thing is that there are no debates about how it is possible that all types of Soviet-designed ERA armor are far superior to Western-designed ERA armor. I am clear that, by design, the Kontakt 1 is superior to the Israeli Blazer armor for the simple fact that the Blazer has one explosive layer while the Kontakt 1 has two (one included).
There are already several reports that the Romor armor is superior to the Kontakt 1, and the Brenus armor is slightly inferior to the Kontakt 5, but both reports are lost in time, and despite being accepted, I highly doubt they will be implemented. The American M60A1 RISE ERA armor has less protection than the Kontakt 1, despite being considerably more modern.
And let’s not even talk about Western NERA armor; you only have to look at the Merkava, Magach 7, and Gal Batash.
Even when you compair modern ERA of 2 countries with almost exact same design philosophy and the one being known to be supiorior to the other in developing and designing it, Russia always has the better stuff…
The argument people make for NATO ERA being worse is that its designed to be safe for infantry to be nearby, this means it is less powerful and is designed to contain the ERA plates. Russian ERA just flies off with a big thick plate and would kill anything it hits.
Wow, there are people with imagination, what I don’t know is if it’s because they saw it somewhere, it’s those players who believe that everything gaijin does is realistic x 1000 and they have to invent excuses to give some sense to the devs’ mistakes.
