there refusal to buff l27a1 shocks me
Additionally the SR(L) 4026 document I sent them is from 1992, the same year that the T80Us were acquired, it just makes no sense at all.
no no according to them we could only guess at the design of the T80Us protection

i mean even a damn google search can tell you, i wanna know what they found that says the opposite

I literally found the parliamentary debate where the Minister of State for Defence Procurement Jonathan Aitken confirmed their purchase and arrival for testing purposes, and have sent that to kobes for the report.
edit: maybe they are making excuses and stalling for time so they can say it wont be added this update. :')
i can almost garuntee thats what there doing
I think they just want to downgrade the CR2s enough to justify the introduction of the Abrams.
If the CR2s suddenly could keep pace, at least to a degree, then the justification to add them drops off quite a bit.
“Oh the CR2s are bad, here take some Abrams, wait a second, the CR2s arent as bad as we keep modeling them too be?”
the cr2 currently on live server is enough to justify the abrams at this point there just throwing shit in its face

clear marketing lie
It’s the special tip made of styrofoam that makes sure L27A1 can’t achieve its minimum penetration requirements - gaijin, probably

this is ai. - gaijin most likely
they’d know a lot about that wouldn’t they…
lol.
on a serious note wasnt L27A1 the FIRST round made to counter K5
well kinda. L26A1 has the same head.

L27A1 was the first where someone went ahead and just bought T-80Us to make sure it actually could.
let me just translate the image into a format they understand

I can’t really think of any reason for the tip to be present apart from combatting ERA?
Maybe to improve it’s angled performance?
In theory it could offer improved angle performance on the same logic as experimental Soviet breakaway tips for APC rounds in WW2, but APFSDS isnt exactly lacking in the angle performance department…
