If it doesn’t go through I still got a mag left for myself.
wdym
you said " the back of the mantlet(with the 50mm missing plate) backs so far into the turret you cannot see the side walls of the turret cast"
Gaijin literally moves the turret armor backwards, and we cannot see the side walls of the turret cast
@DevilO6 @Fireball_2020 we have a new Casting turret
Casting turret position too far forward, incorrect position
Best of luck, but they won’t budge.
The problem is, Gaijin have one (1) source that shows the LAV diagram, from which they’ve interpretted the way the STANAG 4569 levels are reached.
“Fair enough” you might say, if that one document is all you’ve got to prove that.
They also say that ASPRO-HMT is the entire armor array including the backing board.
“That seems reasonable” too, you might exclaim, if there was nothing but speculation to go off.
Therein lies the issue.
I have provided photographs of STANAG 4569 testing ranges, where individual panels are tested at 90 degrees on.
I have provided statements by the companies that state their tests are conducted on JUST the panels. No backing board.
I have provided official test methodology documentation PDFs, which clearly outline the parameters and conditions.
I have provided screenshots, documents, photographs, statements…
More than enough to satisfy Gaijins “2 sources” requirement.
But they instead give you a screenshot of protection analysis in-game and tell you to kindly go shove it, and charge you £75 for a new premium instead.
They do not care that they are wrong. It doesn’t fit the narrative their game is portraying, and it doesn’t fit within the elitist developers’ own opinions.
And…as we know - the developers literally invented the military, so their opinion is god.
Thread locked, banned and deleted.
5 Likes
It’s not that they don’t understand the point you’re trying to convey, and it’s not that they don’t understand how their own game works. It’s just that they simply do not care.
If they made ASPRO-HMT stop 240mm KE at 30 degrees, it would be TOO good for their personal tastes.
They don’t believe the west can make ERA better than what they fielded in the Korean war, while the Russians can create antimatter fields that block incoming attacks like its nothing.
It’s no different than their stance on MANPADS. The west is incapable of making systems and weapons better than what the Russians have.
There’s no difference in understanding between the community, and there’s no “lack of evidence”.
Its the same people who gave T-80B thermals when only prototypes had it, but refuse to give Abrams SEPV2 its depleted uranium hull, because “those are just prototypes, not the production version”.
They simply do not care. They think they know best, and that their opinion trumps any evidence or reasoning.
“ASPRO-HMT is a block filled with a series of NERA and ERA tiles, repeating over and over?
Best I can do is one giant bomb on the side that can maybe stop BMP-1.
Buy the new £70 premium though.”
They simply do not care. I get that it sounds pessimistic, but thats the tough truth, exampled by their work.
14 years of the same 4 gamemodes, a BR that only goes up to 12.X, premiums that cost more than full DCS modules, the same contradictory stances with zero explaination, hipocracy and misinformation from the developers, double standards and elitism, and an unwillingness to accept contradictory evidence to their opinions.
@DevilO6 Wish you the best, but remember who you’re trying to convince and how much they’re paying you for your work and time.
13 Likes
I just found there are a lot of changes on the CR2
1，
The tail of the turret and the cast turret are divided into two parts
2，Hull side armor extension
3，New cast turret
better turret side armor
4，turret side armor
5，Rotor Pins
6, Better Hull Armor
（Possible test server bug）
7, Hull Armor Details
8, The missing dark bule plate
Issue need to report:
1，The position of the casting turret is too far forward
2，Mantlet Missing Rotor Pins
3，Incorrect machine gun position and Mantlet thickness issue
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/KYUhIwpRzLCN
4，Challenger 2 Remodel Mantlet assembly slightly too high
5 Likes
little off the topic, GR.7 has 65G now
Forgive me but how would one 120mm round create more or less spall than another?
They both travel at similar velocities, they are the same calibre, the mass of the penetrator we would assume to be similar, although I can’t prove that.
Both rounds’ penetrators are made from DU, which I doubt is going to have a significant variation in Density… what exactly is it that means we magically spall less? Is it the ghost of Sabot Past?
Well russian tanks for years have created more spall than western tanks, for literally no reason.
2 Likes
And how can APS, what weighs 8kg, creat less spall than thin APFSDS?))))))
theres no realistic reason for it. its just one of the “quirks” of Britain ingame (having dogshit shell performance despite history stating quite the opposite)
1 Like
@Tachikaze45154 I know it’s magically cause British
But like, I wonder if it would be possible to bug report based on stuff in the game code and then ask for justification
Also, muh HESH
HESH is the same as before dont worry, the stat card on the dev just changed because HESH doesnt actually penetrate.
That is to say, its still under performing
2 Likes
Imo your best way to go about it may be trying to somehow find the true weight/length of L27A1, iirc ingame its modeled a 600mm long penetrator where as IRL the Training round is 660mm (so presumably L27 is also)
You’ll get some absolute nonsense about “The Lanz Odermatt formula” and how the game code can’t simply be changed, it must have 16 points of data plugged into it, along with a 3D simulation as proof of spalling
2 Likes
Somebody somewhere explained the training round is longer due to being a different material so it need the extra length to have the same weight.
Something like that at least.
Edit: apparently im wrong, or talking about a different shell.
The training round is 660mm, the CHARM3 is longer from what I recall. Not by much. Something like 665mm