Think this is a different document to that one. But stand corrected on the latest ages of the docs available.
I’m not sure if it is the same document you posted, but the one Flame posted is relevant.
It says it exceeds SSKP against T-80U with Kinetic ERA, around a year after they obtained it.
SSKP requirements for the sake of clarity
The snippet I posted is dated 23 November 1992
But the SSKP requirements are merely 700mm KE are they not?
They are stated as 0,5 WW and 0,4 in a HO, meaning 50/40% of shots should be a single shot kill.
Considering they say in the document they exceeded it
It can be basically anything
Sub document to SR(L) 4026?
I don’t think that one is 93 tho…
It’s from a letter from somebody to another somebody, talking about the future tank fleet and what should be done with challenger 1’s. It’s attached as an addition within this letter.
Idk at this point
We would need Gunjob or Flame, who have all of the documents, to give us a definitive timeline.
I’ve just read all of the last 250 posts posted today and have come to a conclusion.
I need a new hobby, I don’t even care anymore and the circular arguments have made me dizzy.
@Smin1080p_WT when can we get the backplate change from aluminium alloy 7020 to 40mm RHA Which we proved that the weight does not match up, because aluminium is too light !!
Also when can we expect ASPRO-HMT to get it’s correct protection capabilities were ASPRO-HMT by it’s selve will get it’s correct stag protection rating against 25mm apdsfs and tandem atgms.
We pointed this out in the multiple bug reports on the add-on armour kits can these be resubmitted to the developers or could the developers take another look at least to correct there mistake ??
Can’t wait for the reply to be
it was but in fairness its denied for a right reason
The main source has no attatched anything bc who knows where it came from
Thomas and the magic railroad maybe
russian and soviet armour has been over performing, has been since the beginning. Unfortunately for us, I think L27a1 is the smoking gun. Dm53 and m829 are strong enough rounds based on sources that they can even match the over-tuned russian armour and it would be silly to claim that they couldn’t. So Gajin let them be. But when we come along and point at a round that should also penetrate the T-80U whilst being on paper less powerful than the previous 2 rounds it blatantly reveals the bias/incorrect modelling in the game. To allow L27a1 to penetrate a T-80U would mean having to not just changing the armour of the T-80U, but every single soviet/russian tank all the way back to the T-64, maybe even earlier. It would be an admittance from them that they were wrong and that all of their “calculations and in-house sources” were either incorrectly reviewed or made up. It’s not the first time, HESH or APDS take your pick, but for those there was always a way to soft nerf those rounds with shell shattering or what ever HESH does these days.
The TLDR - Marketing lies, game is more accurate than real life MOD reports…
The Challenger 3TD armour not aligning the model was temporarily fixed and then broken again, so it’s now even worse. It hasn’t been fixed since the Challenger 2 rework, which was years ago now.
It appears the CR3TD has the same turret geometry as the Challenger 2s ingame, despite having a different turret shape, leading to the damage model being almost comically inaccurate to the visual model.
It’s quite impressive really because it has the old challenger 2 DM (pre-rework), but they broke it after the rework happened which means they somehow replaced the semi-correct DM with one that didn’t even exist in the game anymore at that time.
I would declare it again: There is no bias.
