Well theres you problem its French
2 Likes
Jokes aside, that is irrelevant because their cannon was higher rated so it could handle higher firing pressures, whereas L30 was locked to a design pressure (sorry, proof pressure!) of 618MPa - meaning it would’ve been very easy to overpressure it, if L27 was fired at velocities that even approach DM43/OFL F1; and if you’re constantly overpressuring a rifled cannon system (which from the get-go has lower durability levels than the smoothbore counterparts), you get +/- 10 shots and the barrel is bye bye (and we both know that clearly is not what happened, so we can chuck out the ultra fast L27 theory out the window).
I like how everyone is cherry picking from this source.
Funnily enough that’s pretty much exactly what happened. The US gave the UK access to a gun and a supply of M829A1 & M829E2 (the prototype for M829A2) ammunition. Then they let the UK carry out their own penetration trials in order to compare them to CHARM 3. So we can safely say that the penetration figures are based on identical firing conditions:
7 Likes
Then it’s a contradiction with known sources in regards to performance of US rounds; or the specifications for CHARM 3 changed since 12th NOV 90.
Seeing as CHARM 3 DU rods come from the US (so they’d be identical to M829A1/E2s in terms of alloying), and there’s a massive length disparity, and performances not matching other know sources - yeap, hard to really come to a reasonable conclusion, since there’s no rhyme or reason to CHARM 3 matching M829E2 against raw RHA.
However I recall @Alan_Tovarishch stating that CHARM 3s requirement COULD’VE included heavy ERA such as Kontakt-5, whereas M829AE2s didn’t (therefore similar RHAe performance, but different raw RHA performance), but I’ll let him elaborate on that.
If this true then T80 shouldn’t be eating my rounds and it make russian mains mad as there lower front plate won’t be there only frontal weaknesses
3 years :)))
Throw in Type 10 and also M338 in there. All 4 are lacking in anti-ERA performance.
Fun fact: the first notion of L27 being anti-ERA capable via a “stumpy tip” is also where the first semi-infinite steel perforation for M829E2 was mentioned.
Yes thats my interpretation regarding what the sources say about CHARM 3. Given the requirements, stated threat reference and time period, I interpret the numbers regarding effectiveness against K5 type ERA.
However the very same sources state in umequivocal terms that Cr2 armor should be nerfed significantly.
If the shell actually penned, the fire rate was accurate and the mobility better. Then that might not necessarily be a bad thing (i dont actually agree that it needs to be nerfed) but the CR2 is a long ranged sniper that cant really even do that at the moment because its shells are underperforming so much
And that was my point. The document has all the context required for the comparisons of performance to be a valid observation. Im not saying the document trumps all other information, just that what was tested within the context of the document shows that charm 3 was equivalent or better than the rounds tested against it.
As far as it being shorter. It could be wider.
They shouldnt bc the ufp armor is over 100mm los too thick on 10 top tier t72b, T90, and t80U variant tanks. The era is performing about correct when deeply analyzed. The tips performance wouldnt really matter unless there was a hardwall implemented for anything without an era tip, even if its los equivalent was greater than what was provided by the k5.
No, it still really isn’t though. RHAe =/= RHA still, as such it shouldn’t be dependent upon in this particular case (i.e demanding buffs for L27), and based on the context of the document, its superiority came solely from the fact it was actually designed to combat Heavy ERA armours; M829A1 wasn’t, while DM43 was sold short (again, for reasons unknown).
And yes, it is wider, but that also comes with a loss of efficiency. The reason APFSDS got longer and thinner is because it allows them to concentrate more energy at an even smaller point of contact, L27s thickness is most likely due to its focus on defeating ERA, rather than enhancing its raw performance.
I suspect you are probably right. But in the absence of ERA perforation, the next best thing would be to up the Pen a bit to put it more on par with other western tanks (not necessarily equal). What the CR2 struggles most in fighting is anything with heavy ERA, the one thing its shells should be the best at dealing with.
Yea that’s not going to happen. Unless y’all can find evidence that the round is fired at a higher velocity, forget it. Gaijin won’t accept a report based on information from this thread, because as I previously stated; the requirements are in RHAe which is an unknown armour array with ERA.
Its been submitted and forwarded already
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/mdod9tP0jyX5
If it was Soviet or maybe US, it would have been implemented already. As for Britain. Gunna be at least 6 months before they even look at it. Maybe more like a year+. But we have no idea what they’ll do. But it must be pretty clear by now that they cant keep doing what they have been doing with regard to the CR2s. Which is ignore their existance. Either they are going to have to increase our firepower by giving us better pen, improve our armour and other survivability traits so that at least we might be able to survive more than a glancing blow or they need to lower the BR of the CR2 at least 1 to 2 stops. 10.7/11.0 might be more appropriate at the moment for the lower 3 and 11.0/11.3 for the higher 2.
Only reason the upper 2 are higher is the better thermals.
3 Likes
I never said rhae equals rha. I understand all of the terminology when attacking composites and armor arrays when compared to semi infinite steel targets. Im writing a 50+ page paper to correct the 11 russian tanks that have wrong armor values for christ sake. Bc gaijin took the nato way to calculate armor and the russians LOSe values and then applied them as flat pen equivalents.
The problem with analyzing primary documents as a researcher is that context is almost always not given, as the context is already present within the readers analysis the document was created for.
So we are left to interpret what they ACTUALLY mean. Which is why for example gaijin got russian ufp composite wrong.
3 Likes
No surprise though that its overperforming and not underperforming
2 Likes
Unfortunately, that report isn’t worth more than a suggestion.
In the game, the penetration of all APFSDS is implemented based on the L/O formula. In this case, what is needed is the penetrator mass, penetrator length, and Muzzle/1km/2km impact velocity, not the penetration.
The material in that report only mentions penetration.
1 Like
Then I hope we get a pretty meaningful BR decrease until ERA perforation is modeled
1 Like
But the problem David is that the LO formula gaijin uses is wrong, and NOT correct. The 30 degree perforation is lacking significantly when compared, and also at 60 by a smaller amount, i made a bug report, and a suggestion, and both were denied.
I agree that that document is a suggestion, and not really that valid. But the in game formula is NOT LO.