Unless you mean to suggest the LFP block weighs in excess of 3 tons, which I disagree with.
This reminded me of how I tried to prove to the developers that they did not take into account the penetration of the L23a1 projectile depending on the gun. I did the calculations based on the game data.
The L23a1 and L26 projectiles are on the (chelli mk3) L11A5 gun and on the (chelli 2) L30a1, L26 on the L30a1 penetrates 4.7% more. But why is the penetration of the L23a1 equally independent of the gun?
“” It is not a mistake, there are not enough documents confirming that this is the case"" :))))))))))))))
It’s still the same gun with the same length. L30 was stronger to withstand the force of the larger and more powerful charge.
The difference in penetration is so small that it seemed to me that it was not an increased charge.))))
The UFP composite is smaller and weighs 1.5 tonnes on challenger 1…
I think Britian has a bit of a history when it comes to over-engineering things to imrpove longevity and reduce maintenance.
They also do like to do some future proofing as well. Just because it might not have gotten a shell with significantly improved pen/ larger charge. doesnt mean they weren’t contemplating one.
6 Likes
You can argue that the L23A1 armor-piercing rounds used on the L30A1 tank gun use a different propellant to improve penetration
I understand that the L23A1 exported to Oman uses a different L18A1 propellant than the standard L6A1 propellant (originally used for the L29A1 armor-piercing training projectile).
Although Gaijin can also argue that the Challenger 2 used by the British themselves did not use the L23A1 armor-piercing projectile with a changed propellant.Xd
I wonder why the spall liners of the Challenger 3’s turret were removed and why we have to wait for the “big update” to have spall liners. The UK always seems to be the last to receive updates, which is kind of annoying. This report is interesting; the guy just had to share the Challenger 3 layout for Gaijin to acknowledge the lack of spall liners. Isn’t that ironic? Why are spall liners being introduced only now?
Challenger 2(All) + Challenger 3(TD) Missing Spall Liners // Gaijin.net // Issues
1 Like
Always has been always will be, only this update have we received a competitive jet, not to mention the light tanks…
British tax
Welcome to Britain
Because the soviets just got their first tank with Spall liners
6 Likes
That’s because on the CR1 the L26 round uses the L14 charge, but uses the high pressure L12 charge when fired from CR2.
The L23A1 uses the L14 (or L8) charge when fired from both tanks.
2 Likes
You sure?
Right but you have almost 7 tons of weight to make up for. Likely even more since the calculations won’t be accurate.
Let’s say it’s TWICE as heavy as the CR1 block. maybe even three times heavier.
You still have 1.5 TONS to make up for with just the antennas, ECM and slat armor, discounting ASPRO installation as 1 ton.
It’s not a realistic value in my eyes and steel lines up more with the expectation of both materials used, material weight (Slat armor is not very heavy, it warps and bends easily), ECM and radios will not be as heavy either. There’s just not 1.5 tons of equipment there, even if the LFP is 3x heavier than CR1s
Tbh i dont think spall liners even got into Cr3 2019. It was a demo, with modified digitalized turret, that is the whole turret inside got removed for the works and then put back so it looks ok. As it was a demo not meant to fight, doubt spall liners were installed.
1 Like
Then as with the CR1 and CR2 prototypes, it’s probably also unarmoured.
If you zoom on the inside part of the cheek
You can see the plates sticking out in a zig zag pattern. Doubt real armour would be shown like that.
1 Like
Trying to play the CR2 at weekends be like;
5 kills in the CR2, 1 in the marksman to kill a 2S38 in the spawn.
3 Likes