Thats fine that this document puts the penetration at 350mm thickness plate perforated at 2km.
But we use the lanz formula, and gaijins altered Lanz formula. So what parameters of the round have to change to achieve this figure?
The length? Diameter? Velocity? Is it blunt or had a frustum?
Tungsten is still very toxic, and a heavy metal. I dont know what material the comment you are referencing is referring to but both material are very toxic.
This gets skipped over. Sure DU emits Alpha Particles but W is not a joke.
Depleted Uranium shells always spark debate and controversy. Yeah Tungsten isnt great either but the public perception isnt as bad. Which can unfortunately be more important than anything else. Especially with dis-information campaigns
No, its not, it is NOT at 60 degrees, it will either be at an angle > 70 degrees, or will be encorporating anti-era in that number.
Well the biggest issue with L27A1 is the fact we don’t know its velocity. So gaijin just kept its velocity as the same as the previous rounds because we don’t know.
Personally, I wouldn’t use that document to try to improve L27
Also the formula doesn’t work with more complex dart construction like having a notched tip which L27 uses.
I wouldn’t be surprised. M829A1 was quite a good service round. Also not fired from a rifled gun.
Depleted uranium is simply better. Self-sharpening and with the correct shaping / tip reduces the issue where it mushrooms the head when impacting at too high of a velocity.
Ok, recently my brain has been overheating so i will sit out all these number talks
I need to make a correction here with what i said earlier. It does not necessarily matter in this case how it was tested though most likely by the assessment of a triple heavy @65 degrees.
The document is dated ‘92. And M829A2 came out in ‘94.
So M829A1 would be the realistic comparison this document is trying to provide.
On the surface, its telling us that Charm 3 is equal in capability most likely to A1.
At 65 degrees which is the most realistic example when assessed using a Nato Triple Heavy (the most likely candidate for testing) according to Lanz M829A1 is ~680mm LOS @2km. W a velocity of 1446mps. Which coincides w the document stating 690mm @2km
The more I look at the Challengers… the more wrong I see in them.
Why are all Challenger 2s’ right hull side weaker than the left? And why do all Challenger 2s have different hull KE values compared to each other, too? 2E has the weakest armor of them all, and both 2 TES and 2F also have weaker armor than base 2 (even with the additional 26mm of structural steel).
What is this mess?
That is what i call “Cr2 does not need bug fixes. It needs a rework”
Fun fact
That should be 50 RHA, but who cares
as for why
I have no idea, but there is one funny thing it ufp
Wait i think i already di a post like that, i will go look for it
yep here it is
Still working on this thing, will be edited untill i add all cr2 here
2
2F
TES
Cr2 BN Hull armor
2E
Ok all done in one place
So yeah, only BN has somethign else for a reason? has a different hull
How strange… the others must have something different too!
2E has significantly weaker armor than base 2, at least according to the armor viewer.
That is all i can gather for a datamine, what causes this is a mystery to me
I think it has to do with the dark blue thing, i dont know what it is, it has no value afaik, maybe if someone had 3D model we could break it apart and see what part it is.
Well, this tank need a whole rework no matter what. All 3 important things (Gun, Armor, Mobility) are wrong, and in multiple ways.
I always thought it was part of the 200mm of composite armor, since not always each description applies to a specific layer or colour, but rather, a set of stuff.
Nope, it is not like that. The yellow thing is the only that apply to composite. If i get my ansel to work i will make some screens rq
Ok ansel should work, i will get my game up and make some screens
it is allso in the turret front
Abrams lack yellow
Also same string
So while it maybe be nothing it still seems weird to me that blue thing exist in chally.
ignoring the fact that in no world ever it is 200mm
Oh yea, and in the middle it is light blue for a reason???
Oh, thank you!
I hope you dont mind i save them.
Well now that we know what it is, it is still not modelled, and they do not look thin to me
I think they are incorporated as part of the composite values. They are mainly visual.
