So as per the training manual the cyclic ROF is 80RPM. Cyclic ROF is the rounds it can cycle uninhibited for a set amount of time. So in this case that’s 6 rounds. Its likely the 90RPM figure is an estimation in the marketing materials.
Since the training manual is a primary document, you would need a Warrior/Scimitar etc etc manual to override it. So the best bet is getting on the National Archives Discover page, locating some docs. Book them out and get them copied at the National Archives.
The marketing materials will not override the training manual in this instance.
Ok, so if i get it right, 80 rpm is the fire rate we would have if the cardridges were infinite, and these 3 sources put out 90 because yes? I know 2 says approx, but it would be a rounding from 85-95 if we do it the usual way.
Yes, so in this instance it can be measured as the speed of the six shot burst. The 90RPM figure is either an estimation or the ROF the MOD set the gun for is lower likely for cost savings. Either way without a primary document the market materials don’t override the training manual so they can be disregarded at this point.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
