Maybe the problem is that the Khalid is overtired.
That thing is a 8.7 tank, forced to be 9.3.
its an 8.7 tank in armour and origin with the mobility of a 10.7 tank with the dart shot of a tank at 9.0.
9.3 fits
1 Like
Take the dart away then. Give it proper historical performance L15A5 instead.
1 Like
I mean the APDS punches harder than most darts but no. Id say shir 1 is pretty well balanced as its trading stillbrew for major amountsof mobility to rival the light tanks of the BR
1 Like
Also, that “mobility of a 10.7 tank” Is still the worst mobility of a 10.7 MBT by FAR.
AND that 10.3 MBT used to be 9.3 its self so.
1 Like
I mean the FV4030 is Just going to be how the Challenger MK2 used to be a couple years ago, But without the Thermals, dozerblade, and L23A1.
When it wasn’t overtired to hell and back.
The Challenger was FINE where it was back then, it didn’t stomp, and if they nerfed the 4030 down to the Chieftain’s reload rate, instead of the buffed 6.5-5.0 Second from the Challengers, it would be alright. Especially Minus the Thermals.
2 Likes
the 4030 at 9.3 would make a great pair to the Olifant Mk2, where you can trade the DM63, Faster reload (if they gave it the Chieftains reload rate) and Thermals, for more armor and Durability.
While achieving basically the same mobility
1 Like
The shir 2 was designed and tested and then panned around 5 years before L23A1 (L23 isnt a real round it is the A1 variant) went into service.
The L15A5 on the shir 2 is an absolute slap on the cheek to british players, as the chieftain mk5 swapped ot the L15A5 once it entered service and was its AP round designed to go through the frontal arc of a T64A at aroun 2000 meters as per the ballistic tests from its design period in the national archives.
It has a tungsten alloy core oppose to the L15A3 coppor cobalt core which was substantially less dense and practical.
On top of this the shir 2 is missing its iranian ammunitions.
The round it has at 9.7 is seriously bad once it goes even against most 10.3s as its a 9.0 round.
The L23A1 round would of been a far smarter addition to the tank with the chieftains reload.
8 seconds at 9.7 for a good round like that with decent armour is a fair trade.
the Khalid aka Shir 1 is nowhere near as mobile as 9.3 light tanks, it cant even keep up with the nerfed OF40s at 9.0.
It goes 56kmph max speed.
but on topic of the L15A5 round it is proper daft that it is identical to the L15A3 round.
1 Like
No L23 did exist, its what the Chieftain Mk10, and upgraded gun Mk5s were fielded with.
I think it should stick with the L23, Get the Chieftains reload, and move down to 9.3, to allow it to actually have a Useful lineup.
Maybe if Gaijin see’s the L23 as too strong for 9.3 with the armor the tank has, Give it PROPER historical L15A5, and move it down to 9.3
Because i will NOT be playing this thing if it just gets sucked into the 10.7 Premium hellhole.
no it did not exist the L23 round is L23A1 even per the imperial war museums website the round they have marked as “L23” literally has L23A1 on the side of the case
The live round used a monobloc tungsten alloy rod penetrator fitted with aluminium fins, and was carried in a light alloy sabot.
it went into service with the Challanger 1 mk2 , as somone else proved to me on the shir 2 post the mk10 chieftains went into service after the L23A1 round in 1984
L23 went into service in 1983.
proper historical L15A5 was an incredibly good round like i said was capable of taking out most tanks that it chieftain was designed to go up against.
Its likely that its just the fact that its a Training round, so its been re stamped to match what was being used at the time, as from what i can find there wasn’t MUCH difference between L23, and L23A1.
On the left is a Training round for standard original L23, made 1984.
The Middle is a proof shot made as a test for Something (im not sure what) and Right is a Production, War shot L23A1.
We also KNOW that L23 existed, it just was replaced fairly quickly due to poor performance, The A1 round was developed less than a year after the L23 was originally put into production, and had the Tungtsen alloy replaced with a better one that allowed the shell to achieve performance more attune to what the British originally desired.
so again the L23 round was not designed as a service round and wasnt used as one either as far as ive seen.
that still puts the shir 2 project being stopped 4 years roughly before the “L23 prototype” was put anywhere near service.
As far as i can find even with the national archives the L23 round as you have it has no ballistic reports other than that stating the L23A1 has 30mm more penetration against the target, which in WT its incorrect anyway!
I prefer to use the sources of the national archives and museums over steel beasts as far as i go for citing sources.
the L23 round did not exist as an in service functioning round as far as the reports go.
irregardless of either of these shir 2 project was canned years before either were even tested so it shouldnt have either round.
again the L23 round was not designed as a service round and wasnt used as one either as far as ive seen.
No. L23 was RUSHED through development, and thrown into Service in 1984 due to a Leak of Soviet Intelligence that revealed more about the capabilities Of the T-64 and T-72.
MEANING it wasn’t fully tested, and once the shell got in the hands of troops, and received some more thorough testing, they realized it was not performing as well as they wanted. So they reengineered the Tungsten alloys that made up the Penetrator, and created the A1 Round.
The original L23 round did see actual British army service for a short time, But was quickly replaced with the A1 Variant.
Some sources i find say that it saw Limited service into the Gulf War even just to clear out the stocks they had already produced of the round.
id like to see those sources cause again like i said there isnt even ballistic reports for it from the NA mate. never mind using it in desert storm.
again ive found no sources to show actual ballistic tests and comparitives between the “two” rounds.
genuinely send me your sources id like to have a read at them. cause if its more accurate than the nation archives then its undeniable.
im sorry mate but i cannot get behind steel beasts as a source when it wont cite where they are getting their information from.
the A1 is from when its accepted into active service. as per the national archives information on the round.
The round as far as im aware went in with its intented expectations.
L23 as a round was the round in design phase. which if so its one of the few in game added as an ammo that is a prototype round.
Regardless of all of this.
THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THAT L15A5 is a copy paste L15A3
2 Likes
Has anyone submitted a bug report about that with suitable sources?
If not it probably won’t be changed.
1 Like
I was building one before with the information fro the NA galleries and royal ordenance but binned it when i seen gaijin changed the bug reports to hiding the moderators names and hwo theyve just been doing what they want with reports.
Ill be entirely honest here, i think we are BOTH wrong, because the British were outfitting Chieftain’s with the L11A5 barrel through the Totem pole program in the mid 1970s, which was the improved barrel designed specifically for use with APFSDS ammunitions.
Why would they be fitting those barrels to tanks, if they didn’t have a APFSDS round to field with the tank?
Is there maybe some Pre L23 APFSDS that is still not known of or something? Or was L23 developed earlier than we think?
IDK its quite odd.
wikipedia says thats why the barrels where swapped for the kewaiti Chieftain Mk5/2K
in between 1975 and 1979 for the first stage of totem pole as well as the Bar and stroud thermals.
however theres absolutely 0 references to what dart that would be.
As far as the tank museum, the national archives and the website from royal ordenance go.
The L15A5 round is what they used. I would need access to the haynes manuel and some of the manuals someone brought up on the chieftains posts to verify why, what round and when these all happened as wiki is not reliable
1 Like