Curse the MoD, saving on anything they can
The MOD is the most noncredible organization I’ve ever come across. The shit I’ve read about the Army/RAF/FAA is comical.
10 Likes
Britain’s greatest enemy. The MoD.
6 Likes
Yeah no i’m sorry that’s a game limitation. the gun has a rate of fire of 90rpm initially, or at the very least more than 80. I’ve heard one fire a burst a whole lot faster than in game. problem is that that isn’t credible. which is fine but goddamn…
Let’s not mention the Tornado F.3 CSP… wait, damn, i did
Aughhhhhhh im going to hurt you badly with 3D printed CSP so you will never say it again.
1 Like
See the problem is that none of how the performance is measured matters. According to the primary document provided Charm 3 performs better in the analysis used to to compare Charm 3 to M829A1 from M1A1.
And since we know 829A1s performance. Charm 3 must have the same dimensions or characteristics to achieve the same perforation.
How its tested doesnt matter if they are tested the same, and they say one is better than the other. We have a different system or many ways to do it, but if it performs better in that analysis, it should realistically perform better when analyzed any other way.
1 Like
Which it doesn’t lmfao. It’s like 100mm shorter overall.
Do you even have evidence that M829A1s preformance was measured in RHAe in that comparison? That & DM43 could’ve been only measured against typical RHA - so, there’s 2 options;
- countries had given their measurements of their projectiles to UK (therefore differences in measuring methods, steel quality etc)
- UK got both M829A1 & DM43 to test at home (and then undersell DM43 for reasons unknown).
I gotta say at this point, stop the mental gymnastics to make L27 perform better - those requirements were against RHAe, so as I said before; you either accept RHAe for all, or you use RHA for all (basically what is being done currently in the game), but then you will be fighting Leopard 2A6s & 2A5s firing APFSDS with 1000mm of perforation!
The actual L27 is a bit shorter than that, see here;
Around ~640 - 650mm total length. Taking into account the needed space for the tracer, and the ballistic tip; the actual penetrator won’t exceed even 600mm - which is the same length as DM43; but magically it would outperform DM43 by 15%, and match M829A1 which has a 680mm penetrator…? Okay, I guess the Brits have finally done it, they broke laws of physics.
The brits literally state in that document that charm 3 is better.
And thats literally all that matters.
M829a1 is a blunt tipped penetrator about 680mm in length. If charm 3 has a touch more velocity then its completely doable.
2 Likes
It seems like it truly is shorter, but that also might be a perspective. I will just take the 650
Ever thought about the context?
Or are you this blinded by national bias & pride?
Where is that attitude coming from. Im an American that Loves British tanks and the Abrams. I still think M1 is the best tank in the world. But the charm 3 document states that charm 3 performs the same/slightly better than the ammuniton used for comparison fired from M1A1. Just scroll up and fond it. It literally says 690 for M1A1 and 700 for charm 3. And thats all that really matters. It says its better.
And A2 didnt exist yet. And 690 is too low in any comparison for a2s performance
Edit. Just because L27 is shorter than A1 doesnt mean it isnt wider. Which would account for the mass difference that could exist by being shorter…
And how does the context matter. One number is bigger than the other. Pretty clear.
1 Like
The document states the performance is against an unspecified complex armour which isn’t a semi-infinite block of steel; and it doesn’t dwelve any deeper into the comparison with the American & German APFSDS, both of which were likely tested against typical RHA under different conditions (have you not noticed the range ain’t given either, or steel quality, or even angle?).
This should be completely self-explanatory, but apparently isn’t. It’s clear to me that you lack knowledge, and I won’t jump you for that, but you really shouldn’t be taking each and every number at face value, because then hurr durr:
Look, it gives BIIIG NUMBER! Must be 100% true, and we can ignore context, the target, angle etc etc etc.
Its right here. In the same context. Charm 3 is better than the round fired from M1A1
1 Like
Dude, are you trolling?
No. Its literally right there.
WHY would the british test under DIFFERENT CONDITIONS. When comparing things assessed a certain way.
That doesnt make sense for a performance analysis. And smart people do this for a living. So im going to trust that the comparison made in that document is in the correct contexts for comparison.
1 Like
Why is DM43 underperforming then? It’s performance is significantly lower than it should be, M829A1 is also performing better than it should be (US documents were giving ~650mm of penetration at 2km range…). We can fact-check their performance against plain steel via L-O.
Now, explain to me, what do you NOT understand about RHAe =/= semi-infinite RHA? Because you are clearly having an issue with comprehending an elementary concept.
Next, do tell me how CHARM 3 can perform so much better, to such a point it seemingly is now matching M829A2 in raw performance (which per the Americans, had a 50% chance of achieving ~700mm RHA penetration at a range of 2km’s). Because it’s unlikely the Brits managed to fire it off at 1800m/s+ (seeing as DM43, which is presumably lighter, had only achieved 1790m/s when fired out of the French L/52 cannon).