Nice to see you just skipping over and choosing not to address the whole section of my post about us needing more information to determine what the 500 mm KE protection requirement even means…
2 Likes
As I said, so far in the sources theres no indication that they went with that stretched protection capability. However, nerfing armor from almost 700mm KE (current) to 600mm KE does change a lot in balance vis a vis other nation´s tanks, namely USSR with BM60 being able to defeat Cr2 anywhere in the front from close to 2km at least. The first tank with BM60 is already available at 10.7 while CR2s are at 11.3. And of course, BM60 will not be the only round now capable of defeating Cr2. This would be even worse if we went with the most likely historical 500mm KE.
So going with the most plausible source interpretation will lead to a lot of balance issues. I don´t know how it should be adressed without leaving UK with no viable top tier MBT.
There are other snippets and sections of the recently surficed sources saying specifically that Cr2 achieves 500mm KE on the turret front only in the narrow 20º arc (not 30º). In other sections they go into detail about the mantlet, that they knew it was a weakspot and couldn´t be protected to specified levels (and because doing so would compromise the balance of the turret). I´m not posting those parts until the owner of the sources gives me a greenlight.
On the up side while the required protection capability seems pretty bad from today´s point of view, I gotta admit that historically it was the right call. After all, the best KE round in 125mm available since those years and until about 2017-2018 was BM42, and 500mm of KE protection is good enough to defeat it at combat ranges. So (by accident) UK Army had the right protection requirements for these long 30 years without over spending to protect against non existing threats.
sorry what?
a 40 degree arc of 600mm+ flat protection is more than enough to stop 3bm60
This is such backwards logic. So unless they specifically state somewhere, already non-classified, that the armour exceeded the MINIMUM SPECS, you think it makes sense to assume the MINIMUM is the real value?
2 Likes
that says there was a high chance of fkill, meaning the elevation mechanism, which is apart of the protection so to be expected.
1 Like
If anything, 500/600mm KE would be achieved strictly in the forward 40 degree arc (20 per side). Outside of this arc, protection level will fall (the armor block is LOS thinner). Current ingame Cr2 has up to 700mm while BM60 can penetrate 600mm almost at 2km, so the nerf would make Cr2 able to be penetrated by BM60 anywhere up to almost 2km. So yes, it would shake up balance a lot.
Where is it stated explicitly that the armor exceeded the requirements?
Again I am well aware because I was the person who went to the archives and photographed that document.
You are missing the point though. What is the 500 mm KE requirement for? Is it that the weakest point in the frontal +/-20° arc should not be less than 500 m RHAe (if so that’s a buff)? Is it that the average protection over the frontal +/-20° arc should not be less than 500 mm? Etc.
Until there is more information on what it means you can’t really say what needs nerfing or buffing.
The document you are referring to states that the protection levels in SR(L) 4026 were derived from what would be needed to stop the T-80U’s APFSDS round. So it was no accident (and I guess shows the UK had some good intelligence on Soviet tank capabilities).
Where is it stated explicitly that any of the required specifications were met and/or not exceeded? Because I’ve not seen you provide a single source which proves the production CR2 had the exact same specifications as what the MoD set out for it to have.
it can penetrate 530mm at 2km, well below the 600mm arc…
like i said, a 600mm arc but with a proper mantlet would actually be a buff, as for charm 3 we need target info to draw anything from that.
1 Like
You still did not answer “What’s the source of this scheme?”
Just so we are all on the same page, this is the nerf that should be applied based on primary sources.
Further, unless we get from a primary source explicitly that Cr2 turret armor exceeds the SRL4026 requirements, we have to use those as its actual in service protection capability (500mm KE, 800mm CE).
1 Like
Are you unable to read why would it need a nerf cause a document says it needs to at least meet a certain threshold means that is exactly how strong it is
3 Likes
At 0 degress horizontal, ingame Cr2 armor is 5 percent more effective. Doc specifies that 500mm KE is achieved within 20º arc, so at 0º the armor should be 525mm KE.
In terms of sources, what has been surfacing these past weeks is as good as it gets. Primary sources from the country of origin specifying concrete protection requirements.
Now in practical terms, this should guarantee that all Cr2 get down in BR at least to 10.7 and perhaps even lower. My question is, OK, now what do we do with British top tier?
Once again we don’t know what the protection requirement refers to. It could be that the weakest point in a +/-20° arc has to be 500 mm for all you know (in which case the rest of the turret would be thicker than 500 mm RHAe).
1 Like
Just repeating the 20 degree thing isn’t going to answer the questions posed about it earlier in the thread.