You said it yourself, if they are bullets designed to counter ERA, it means that they should at least be able to penetrate Kontakt 5 without problems, since previous ERAs have practically no protection against KE, so that anti-ERA improvement of the APDS-FS was based on being able to nullify the effectiveness of Kontakt 5 as much as possible.
I can see L27A1 struggling, being an older round, but yeah, DM53 probably barely even notices the ERA
1 Like
well we illegally got T80U from russia to test K5 during the development of L27A1 and it was stated i think that L27A1 could reliably pen the T80U front so one of them is either over performing or underperforming or both
This is what it says when you search using Google’s AI:
The L27A1, also known as CHARM 3 (Challenger Armament 3), entered production and service with the British Army in 1999.
The round was designed and manufactured by Royal Ordnance (now Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL)) specifically to defeat advanced heavy [Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA)] on the Challenger 2’s L30A1 rifled gun.
I don’t know if it’s 100% correct, but being a bullet from 1999, I wouldn’t rule out that what it says is real due to the simple evolution of weaponry.
Oh, its newer than I thought, I thought was late 80s, early 90s it was developed. woops.
Then yeah, would not be surprised if it was at least able to partially counter R5 enough to take out the tank below
L27A1 (CHARM3) is specifically stated to have exceeded the required one shot kill probability against a T80U with Kontact V.
That should mean it can UFP a T80U ingame, basically every time, yet it can’t.
3 Likes
Keep in mind that the L26A1 is already from 1991.
Yeah, I think im just being a bit dumb :D
(its been a long day)
i love you, yeah thats the photo i was trying to find for like 2 hours a couple days and never did but is this the case of L27A1 underperforming or K5 overperforming? or both.
We all make mistakes; we can’t remember everything.
1 Like
Probably both.
ERA Perforation (what would allow many rounds to pen ERA like K5) is not modeled at all
Soviet ERA, including K5 is probably stronger in-game than it actually should be, especially as it just magically deletes the round on contact rather than the round penning like it would any thick armour that it can just barely pen and still producing some spall that might pen and do meaningful damage. All other ERA in-game works like this, only soviet ERA has the magic delete round code
1 Like
I still remember this colleague’s post, where he calculates some protections for Russian tanks that are somewhat different from those in the game.
1 Like
That was such an epic post, shame it sort of just… died and went no where (to no ones surprise)
Absolutely right. A great effort from a player, which ends up being forgotten, like most things that aim to improve the game.
For example, I love the armor calculations for the T-55AM1, AMD, and T-62M1, where the protection rating falls between that of the T-72 Ural and T-72A. This suggests that while all the T-series tanks have more protection than they should, these three, curiously, have less.
Lately, I’ve read people complaining that the T-55AM1 has a very high Battle Rating (BR). If they increased its protection and gave it the correct penetration for its 3BM25, it would be a pretty decent tank at its current BR rating.
CHARM 3 was developed in the late 80s / early 90s and completely finished by something like 1994. It only officially entered service in 1999 because the Challenger 2’s entry to service was delayed.
1 Like
1994?
It’s possible, since it seems very strange to me that the L26A1 was from 1991, and they didn’t release a subsequent ammunition until 1999.
Fixed
2 Likes
Very good report, and it’s a shame that instead of correcting it they presented it as a suggestion (realism only when it suits them).
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/bMbEJftRqiSp
As you say in the report, testing began in 1990, and there is information about an improvement to that bullet in 1993. Considering that it finally entered service in 1999, I wouldn’t rule out that it received some further improvements during that time.
gajins allergic againjst spall liners either way, even if it had some and you proof it, they wont add it in the first place
3 Likes