im not sure they would find that acceptable. my idea is finding out what lenth they used and counter it.
Was that report not at 30dg?
30dg?
From what I remember thte source cited for protection was from ammunition fired at a 30dg aspect
[Development] Discussing reports related to the Challenger 2 MBT - #598 by DevilO6 This post by @DevilO6 Goes over their claim pretty well and shows how its a misunderstanding of the testing methods.
ok so this comes directly from gaijin:
so it says l27a1 is 600mm. what obliquity should i use?
2 Likes
yes i know, and legwolfs report comes to prove its wrong to base it of only that.
We know that penetration increased by ~50 mm between the time of that document, and the production round. So that increase has to have come from somewhere (round design, or velocity, or both).
2 Likes
Where is that stated? The 700 figure afaik was also only the requirement that it met, not a direct penetration figure.
iirc for DU it’s near that figure. I’ve seen 19200kg/m^3 bandied around.
1 Like
You can see in the sheet he linked, gaijin uses 18600 for DU as a standard.
1 Like
@Torpon993
If the reason for facing inward is that you believe L30 and L11A5 have the same structure, Trunnions. However, the mantlet structure of CR1 is completely different, and there are no Trunnions like CR1, so this hole is not intended for use with this component.
You also agreed with my guess about the rotor structure, so there is no need to leave a hole inside at all.
No lmao, thats a Splash guard, against water getting into the turret via the gun mount
yea i noticed but i cant seem to find theyr pen values in the LO calc.
so were suposed to put 0 obliquity?
1 Like
Im not sure how it all works myself since penetration and perforation is not the same thing, but if you would put 60 deg for example you would get 659.3 mm, so I just did it for 0 deg as an example, to show that we would get the exact same value as ingame.
how about L28A1 which is 660