You know what would be funny, sending this to one of them geo guessers and seeing if they could find where this picture was taken. Although I never knew SA used the FV101/107 hull?
Presumably, this is an exhibition of modernization of military armored vehicles for purchase. Which took place in Jordan, jordan has a lot of fv101/107 but they are outdated and they needed their service life extension.
But SA performed with another modification of the scorpion.
My god the optics in that, a variable x27 with thermals. Isn’t that just a helicopter imager lol.
It’s one of Jordan’s KADDB CVR(t) upgrade proposals.
This one was a mockup for an unmanned turret sporting 2A72 and 4x Kornet E missiles, complimenting the previous manned turret design.
Design swiftly moved on to using the Ukrainian Kastet turret instead
But getting a bit off topic from discussing Challenger 2 again?
4 Likes
Sorry
Good to see its rules for thee not for them )
It’s the same rules we have always had. It can be used as supplementary to other sources.
Nothing is new or has changed here.
I was kind of interested to see if we could get gaijin to change the mantlet of the Challenger 2 into high hardness armour.
Vehicles such as the Class 3P have a volumetric high hardness mantlet and it m`akes it a lot more effective.
I’m not claiming the mantlet of the CR2 is high hardness, I would need to do some research, but if it could be changed to that it could keep its current volumetric dimensions but be significantly more effective.
Does Jane’s count as a secondary source, so having a Jane’s plus one other would be enough. Or would it require 2 secondary sources or a primary source and then Jane’s to back it up or provide some more key information?
Jane is not counted as a secondary source that add on, you would need 2 other unrelated secondary sources, then you can add Jane as a third source.
1 Like
im assuming a brochure would count as a secondary source. in the international defense review 1988:vol 21 lss9, there is a section on romor and varma armour, with the varma armour being stated as doubling the ke and ce protection of an m48 and m60 with it mounted. and stating it can stop a soviet 125mm apfsds round from 1500m out while on the m60 and m48. for romor A, being the active era, can stop 127mm heat charge to the front and sides of a chieftain with it on. and then finally romor B, being the passive, has comparable ke and ce equivalents to steelbrew found on the chieftain. would this be enough to get there values correct along side that other source about the testing of romor era?
Just played 2 games today, both games got one shot through the breach by a T-80 from >2km away. Sodding joke.
1 Like
Sorry, we got to have our breach meta no matter what. Even if that means Russians have tiny breaches that are impossible to specifically aim for at distance where has we you would have trouble missing ours.
Pretty much every single Chinese tank from ~9.3 onwards is missing its spall liner. (China is the nation with the MOST missing spall liners in the game).
The 99A has multiple issues - from its autoloader being 7.1 seconds instead of 6.7 seconds, to multiple modelling issues (enlarged LFP, wrongly modeled breech, wrongly modeled sides), the 125mm DTC shell is also underperforming. Mobility wise - it is correct, though. Unlike the VT-4A1.
As for the VT-4A1, it’s extremely grim. The VT-4A1 has many issues, such as:
-
Frontal armor is underperforming - missing ~100mm of effectiveness on the UFP known from the base armor figures taken from the Pakistani tests, and the entire breech is missing its whole trunnion leading to an inferior breech compared even to the Challenger 2.
-
side FY-2SH ERA
-
LFP FY-2A ERA
-
Turret spall liner
-
Hull spall liner
-
Side roof armor is 5mm when it should be 30mm like the actual roof itself.
-
Rear of the turret has a dent in the model .
-
Rear of the turret has drone box (VT-4A1 is meant to have a personal drone to launch) yet they didn’t give it a light tank drone even though it’s literally built for it unlike almost every other light tank (other than the also Chinese QN506), but they modeled the box where the drone is supposed to be and where it launches from. The VT-4A1 is one of the only MBTs to have a personal drone in real life and should have it as an option as a unique aspect of the vehicle.
-
Upgraded autoloader is meant to be 9 RPM (just like on the Al Khalid I), AKA 6.66 second reload.
-
Hull traverse is considerably slower than the 99A and WZ1001 and its noticeably more sluggish for no reason
CONTESTED BUGS - something that still can’t be said for certain and is more speculative:
-
Should have a 1500 HP engine, it’s literally unknown if it has a 1300 HP or 1500 HP engine and they just went with the lower figure.
-
Should have the same reverse speed as the 99A and WZ1001, their current 17km/h figure is taken from a VT-4 (not VT-4A1) document stating “2 reverse gears” with ratios which ends up being 17km/h. But it is known that it has the exact same shifter as the ZTZ-99A/WZ-1001 with two reverse gear positions and it’s possible that it’s a misconstrued piece of info. As in the very same image - the forward gears are also not fully shown. R1 should engage the low speed gear and R2 should engage the two extra reverse gears. This is further cemented by the fact that taking those same gear ratios from the Thai document and adding one extra reverse gear adds up to -34km/h in reverse, EXACTLY the same as the ZTZ-99A and WZ1001. Both use the CH1000 transmission, except the 99A uses the “A” and the VT-4A1 uses the “B” which came later, uses the same technology, and shouldn’t have any real performance differences.
Spoiler
4
4 Likes
Aren’t you missing the side era or has that been acknowledged. The only thing I fucking hate about the Chinese tree are there helis, everything else is as you said.
I refuse to play it, waste of time
I don’t understand how Gaijin is so unbelievable stubborn when it comes to needing 1 Primary 2 Secondary sources when LITERALLY every nation aside from Soviet Union/Russia has very limited sources on the performance of their vehicles. Some vehicles don’t even have 3 sources to go off.
If they put effort into making minor nations vehicles actually good and not just torturous to play, more people would play Britain,China,Italy,France,Japan,Isreal and would be more willing to spend money on those premium vehicles (I’m looking at the OES and Premium Merkavas).
5 Likes
I agree, it’s quite insane that they want OEM manuals when they themselves stated that War Thunder will be adding vehicles in service. There are many bug reports which have more than enough information, some that they even acknowledged - which still haven’t come through.
Such as the ZTL-11 reverse speed and it having only 1 reverse gear. (Actual insanity).
And this is all they have to say.
They’re completely aware that there is a problem, but they continue to be stubborn. (Report is over 2 years old, as you can see). This is a continued trend and we’ve seen the same thing happen surrounding the Challenger’s hull ammo exploding, the Ariete’s 5.5 ton WAR kit made to stop APFSDS still being modeled as composite screen with a 0.1x KE modifier, and others.
(The WAR kit should obviously have a 1x KE modifier and its mass makes it clear that it’s mostly RHA, RHA density is 7.8 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm³) - you can basically extrapolate basic figures from there and get 200mm+ of effective armor against KE, yet it’s ~20mm effective in-game, for the tank that needs a buff the most out of all.)
There’s many issues in the game that anyone with common sense would never allow to happen.
5 Likes