When it comes to precise dimensions and compositions - especially in-service ammunition - you are probably not going to get much in the way of hard info. SR(L) 4026 is the best we’ve got that is declassified and okay to use.
Im trying to get hard info but i just need to know if we already have documentation saying its diameter and we dont even have the full SRL 4026 document.
I just want to know if we have something saying its a fact that this is the diameter or if we are using logical assumptions by putting reports together.
Not sure if this is average, or maximum diameter.
I know gaijin is dumb, but this statement is dumber. CR2 cheeks are already not a weakspot, so why would thicker ones be?
Thats for XL27 development round which was the test for L27A1. It states in that document that changes would need to be made for the L27A1 to meet SRL 4026. One of those changes I think is the diameter was changed from 26mm to 25mm
As far as I’m aware the round’s design was frozen at this point. It remained this design with propulsion improvements.
They reduced the mass aswell
Wouldn’t suprise me, it was 9.5kg, if they reduced the sabot mass it would be a significant improvement given the limits on pressure. The final charge was pretty hefty.
But what’s your source for the reduced mass, is there a later doc I haven’t seen?
In that rest of that document it states they would have to reduce the mass.
I only remember there being options to further improve performance, being a mixture of propellent changes and reduction in sabot petal mass. If you have seen something else do please show.
Can you show specifically that the L-27 penetrates a tank through Kontakt-5? Is it written directly? I only saw words that the probability of capability a tank is 40-50%
CHARM 3 exceeds the Single Shot Kill Probability required by SR(L) 4026 against T-80U with KE sensitive Explosive Reactive Armour.
1 Like
I don’t know Comrade. Is it written directly that a T-80U w/ K5 WILL be able to stop L27? I’ll wait for your sources…
No - I thought not.
By the time of the quoted report the UK had a T-80U and knowledge of K-5 in their possession.
Since T-80Us were fitted with K-5 and not K-1 - it is evident that the requirement was specifically for that. Unless you can prove otherwise; yes - the UK like most NATO powers had developed ammunition capable of defeating Cold-War vintage ERA…
kostspielig towarish kapitalist
Then why do you think it’s capable of penetrating the UFP specifically? If it were capable of penetrating a tank in the UFP, they would have listed a penetration chance of 0.8, right?
1 Like
On one hand we’ve a primary source document that says CHARM3 does not just match the requirement to defeat T-80U with K5 - it “exceeds it”. Such a statement would not be made if most of the frontal profile (which includes the UFP) was impenetrable at ranges of 2000m.
This is an official UK MOD document.
On the other we have you. Who appears desperate to argue that old 1980s Soviet armour cannot possibly be beaten by a munition In the 1990s EXPRESSLY DESIGNED to do so.
Hmm. Who is most likely to be correct? The line of argument that has evidence or the one that does not!
Probably not the random Ivan forum poster…
By the way - say Hi to Ralin for me. It is always amusing to see you both pop over from the RU forums to make yourselves look a bit daft when trying to talk about Western military technology - a concept that might as well be voodoo as far as you are concerned.
So некультурный
5 Likes
I’m not proving anything here, I asked one question regarding your position.
I understood your position, except for the vague words about:
You have nothing
What you wrote
This is already your opinion.
No, некультурный this only you
You’ve labeled me because of one question, although almost everything I discuss here has nothing to do with your бритиш voodoo magic.
i’m still waiting for your sources that say that the UFP of a T-80U with K-5 is immune to L27.
You see, when one states a position it usually helps to have evidence to back it up. Otherwise you are in the realms of wishful thinking.
I have a primary source document that says L27 exceeds the single-shot kill rate vs. T-80U at 2km away. We also have evidence that the designers of the L27 round had an actual T-80U to analyse and look at prior to development
Do you believe that a round designed to defeat a T-80U is unable to penetrate most of the frontal plate and turret at a distance of 2km - where most if not all shots would be at centre mass rather than trying to pick out those little postage stamps of the hull where K-5 was not present?
Yes or No?
If so… I think you need to give your head a wobble.
3 Likes
‘‘I’m still waiting for sources that say the T-80U can’t fly’’
‘‘If you can’t provide sources that state this, the T-80U can fly’’
That’s the problem with proving negatives.
4 Likes
The difference is - we have a primary source that states something is the case.
The esteemed poster appears to be unable to offer any evidence that would contradict it.
If we accept the documents as correct (which is reasonable in the absence of any evidence to question them) then either the T-80U+K5 is actually over-performing -or- L27 should have the ability to negate K-5 to enough of a degree that it can penetrate T-80U+K5.
The wording of the docs is key. It refers to T-80U WITH ERA. That means that the hull + era was the obstacle to be defeated by CHARM 3. Not just the tank minus K-5.
It does not say ‘this round will defeat this tank with this era so long as you don’t shoot at any bit that has said era fitted.’
1 Like
He’s got a point. Absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence.
Unfortunately Gaijin have come to the very intelligent conclusion that they are right because they can never be wrong because “тне ргiмагу sоцгсе саи’т ье тгце” or something like that. Idk I gave up last Christmas (I gave you my heart) so this whole charade means nothing to me especially when I’ve stopped playing anything above 10.7 especially when the Challenger Mk 3 is the best one out of the lot when you use the fun/br ratio.
6 Likes