The Haines manual mentioned in the report does list estimates for the penetration levels of Russian ammunition while the MoD was starting to look at replacing CR1
Edit: at work atm but I can send a photo of them when I’m home… though it might be the protection levels of the T-series tanks and I’m mis-remembering
Ahh the third duplicate. This has been reported for sometime now and all these materials are already present on the report internally.
Looks like reduced spalling after penetration is a game wide issue that affects all tanks, not just those with spall liners.
So any improvements seen with the challengers is this bug in effect and will likely be reversed.
Current C2 ammunition propellant seems to be fully IM compliant:
For anybody who needs more context, this is from AOP-39:
It saddens me to see that it was “acknowledged” SEVEN (7) months ago, and yet, nothing has been done and CR3 has been implemented with a 200mm thick mantlet too.
I don’t think they will be fixing this, at this point and sadly.
If Challenger 2 had its mantlet fixed, it would go from being one of the worst tanks, to one of the best, and it would actually become the best hull down tank instead of one of the worst too!
As of now, literally 1/3rd of the turret surface is a lethal weakspot.
Could we use this with the footage from that documentary of a charge bin getting hit by a KE projectile and not detonating to bug report the ammo detonation chances?
I’ve just realised that the not true to life era on the 2f TES OES is now 100% dead weight instead of 90% dead weight as their is no stock heat at that br so it protects you from nothing
The best challengers are the ones without ERA
I suspect you’re right.
I imagine we’re going to get “We think we’re right and you’re wrong, tough shit” on the devblog response. :(
I do not know, I am not aware if IM are modelled in game or not currently (unless the rounds are situated in a carousel…)
We need proof L16 or L16 uses Rowanite 318
Also I imagine the current high pressure propellant is what we use now.
To be fair, having looked at the material again, it is not clear that L18A1 uses Rowanite 318 which is IM compliant, or 316 which does not seem to be IM compliant.
L18 is also the wrong charge anyway
Would the Tank Museum’s video on Challenger 2 count as a reliable source?
no cause video even though those guys know almost everything about the tank
Depend on what you try to prove. If it is something that is based on speed (reload, rotation ect) no, if it is something that is not based on speed (for example postition of something in the tank) then yes
