6 Likes
Yes, thank you
Do we know what SRl 4026 is? I asume its a standardised label of effectiveness
AFAIK its this, which was provided as evidence to the L27a1 changes, however not enough info was tagged.
Note: these were originally posted by Jecka some time ago.
5 Likes
Which again I raise the question to, what internal testing have Gaijin done to check if the L27A1 round can or cannot penetrate the T80U UFP with ERA or without ERA, as you and I both know the documents for the L27A1 are classified.
So have they used some form of penetration simulator? outwith the game?
have they managed to find an alternate source which disputes claims, as I said from the British Armed forces report?
We are aware you welcome them, but how are we to provide any further documentation on classified military equipment? Commit treason to our nations ?
As that is literally the only option left to provide the information developers seek.
As well as this, why then does the 2S38 get APFSDS munitions, or the KH38MT exist in game? not rabble rousing genuinely asking why they can be added with information from a brochure but the L27A1 not get fixed.
Yes I have read it, and the point stands the CR2 thread is nearly 3 years old and the majority of the genuine bugs / issues with the tank which are important and could potentially make the tank as competitive with it’s peers have gone ignored.
He , justifiably, feels ignored by developers considering that now the CR2 has had some lip service paid to it, with said report that you linked, and has had basically no substantial changes since 2024 made to it.
It’s combat effectiveness in game has been the same for nearly 4 years.
Which again, has been proven to be incorrect.
Other reports are open on what exactly? I don’t quite follow.
the armour values?
the trunion?
the spall liners?
was it not known as what was mentioned above hte CR2 ATD?
This has 700 pen?
1 Like
I could be wrong about this, but I believe there are some aspects of the tank we have in-game that definitively tie it to the earlier 2019ish Challenger 2 LEP, before it got selected and the overall program got rebranded to Challenger 3. I’ll try and dig out some specifics.
One of the usual suspects will probably know more than me.
i assume different calculation method to gaijin standards.
1 Like
thank you I’ve had it a long time
It’s supposedly a design requirement. Apparently, the SR(L) 4026 is a requirement; it’s stated that it can destroy a T-80U with Kontakt 5 in a single shot, and apparently the L27A1 could easily do that, hence the “exceeds” part.
1 Like
Well chaps - obviously what the text should read is something akin to this:
It was therefore noted that a new APFSDS round - CHARM3 - also known as the T-80U-Killer-5000-Yes-It-Smites-It-1000, would be required for CR2.
CHARM3 (T-80U-Killer-5000-Yes-It-Smites-It-1000) exceeds the Single Shot Kill Probability required by SRL 4026 against…inhales…
…a T-80U built by Oleg Tomsky (not to be confused with his BrotherTom Tomsky; no this specifically the one with the limp and a slightly malformed rear molar) and painted a slightly paler shade of Soviet Green with exactly 13,333 kms on the odometer as of February 23rd 1992. It also only works on T-80Us made by Oleg with the non-spec Green and the 13,333 kms if they also have a slight squeak on the hinge of the gunner’s hatch at temps of -5C. ONLY THEN…
…with KE Sensitive Explosive Armour which is THE current worst case threat targets.
Obviously we’re not finding sources that are specific enough.
4 Likes
SR(L) 4026 was the specification for the replacement for Chieftain - effectively ‘we want our next tank to be able to do X’. They would be working on the assumption that future Soviet Tanks would be getting better and better so the specs would be written with that assumption in mind.
Just an edit to add - It was NOT the specs for Challenger 1 - even though CR1 came after Chieftain. They should be viewed as the wish-list for what would become Challenger 2.
3 Likes
The round was tested against the T-80U with and without ERA in conditions to check its performance within game conditions.
This was also factored in with the the design being mostly structural analogue of the L26. This design of the tip section serves to reduce projectile ricochet and was used in particular on the L26/BD26, among others.
Respectfully, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Whataboutism is sadly not going to lead to the developers changing the outcome of the report. So lets please try to focus on the subject and hand and how we can constructively move forward. Rehashing other subjects wont do that.
3 Likes
Ironically enough they could’ve added AT 2S38 which could fire APFSDS and is a lot lighter and better than current 2S38. So if anything its nerfed vs what it could be.
Wrong reply oops.
2 Likes
So the only ambiguity in the document is that it dousnt specify what russian era l27a1 was tested on?
The name was previously changed due to this report: Community Bug Reporting System
Subsequently, this one was submitted after to change it again: Community Bug Reporting System
But received the following dev response:
These images were from early on in the program before it was confirmed as the Challenger 3. It has since been confirmed as the Challenger 3 program and this is the demonstrator before the official prototypes and production variants. Its name is as intended in game.
If you cant see / need any of the images / sources in the report to avoid you looking for duplicates, then please let me know and I can send them.
How would I go about suggesting that the slowest tank at top tier should have some redeeming factors?
Edit - this isn’t be trying to be a smart arse btw, its a genuine question - if documents are presenting supporting real life characteristics of the vehicle are not going to be taken for what they say, how would one ask for changes for gameplay purposes
5 Likes
this wouldn’t have been the case if:
A - T-80U armour wasn’t over preforming
B - L27 wasn’t under preforming or had its actual penetration values
Currently there is reports stating that one of these values must be wrong as L27 can pen a T-80U
7 Likes
I’m sorry , what? The L26A1 round has very little to do with the construct of the L27A1 round, the L27A1 round was specifically designed to deal with modern threats E.G T80U up until at least the 2000s, the L26 was already becoming outdated by that point.
Hence the need for CHARM 3.
It’s hard to watch reports from the literal military of a nation be dispatched and tossed when brochures are used for other vehicles to add features.
2 Likes
Yes i reported it myself, its still slightly over performing but thats a different topic
Generally since that fix the textolite on the T64A has been ~0.4x weaker than on a lot of other tanks
But it is not fair the base it on a multiplier entirely as different rounds have different affects on different materials and armour
I dont believe RHA + texolite + rha is “reactive” so the affect is greatly reduced and so generally it could be more than found on the T64A, especially with plates in between textolite which could be punishing to the rod
But it is more designed to counteract HEAT and given that the T80U uses i think the array that was made to counteract 105mm DM23 i would think it to be overperforming with no other basis than knowledge and educated guesses
1 Like