9.7 for this thing is horrendous man…
How exactly? There are like 3-4 other similar vehicles at 9.7.
It’s currently maybe slightly worse than stuff like the VBCI-2, but give it spall liners and/or those DU darts and it would make up for the worse mobility.
its a better badger and thats about it, that thing is awful at 9.0 and ought to be 8.7 so why should the same thing but marginally more capable (good ROF instead of rarden slow as hell ROF) so why would i want it to be a whole BR over that?
Id honestly put it at 9.3, not that big of a BR change but it escapes the 10.7 vacuum.
I think that if the Type 25 can be at 9.7 so can the M1296.
If it got spall liners and the DU dart it should be relatively on par with the VBCI-2 and Type 24.
Would you happen to know if this round is the same dimensions as its current APFSDS? Is it just the penetrator material that’s different? How much would this increase performance?
Its specific size, initial velocity, and penetration depth value are not listed on the official website, indicating that it is likely not publicly available
Has anyone created spall liner bug report?
1 Like
The very last entry lists the exportable (tungsten) variant NG11170W as >105mm RHA at 1km, so we know it’s somewhat better.
2 Likes
Another thing would be that the M813 uses a first round select, dual feed mechanism so should have access to both single type belts and limited to no inter-belt change reload to represent this feature.
1 Like
Forwarded as suggestion.
1 Like
Recently saw a bug report for incorrect weight was turned down because of that ODIN source, so I decided to start looking into the weight of it.
Spoiler
https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/portals/61/docs/re/rpxgreensboro/illustrated_equipment_data.pdf
Does this source look like a viable option? It doesn’t directly list the weight of the M1296, but it does of the M1126 chassis (35574 lbs, 17.8 tons). Also, does anyone have any sources with the weight of the MCT30 turret? I’m not sure if the one in the original report was a good source, the bug reporting managers do not do a good job of being clear with what they are saying. If it is a good source, the weight of the Dragoon should be about 19.3 tons (could round up to 20 for ammunition and what not). It is quite strange that the Dragoon weighs more than the M1128.
Made a report regarding the spall liners. It ain’t very good, but I think it’ll do.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4UWXiXZMsNMh
1 Like
Thank you!!
You could also add this image to your report
1 Like
Added it. I was a little hesitant with the report at first. I don’t know how the bug report managers will respond to comparing the M1126 to the Dragoon, even though the Dragoon is based on the chassis. Depending on the outcome of this one, I will report the weight being incorrect as well, since that too will require being able to use the M1126 as a basis for my argument.
M1128 spall liner bug report were also had spall liner images from M1126 (the exact same images that you have uploaded minus the one that stated spall liner was present in hull riser)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OIiVydQ9THeG
As for weight it will definitely be denied due to the addition of various systems like the gun itself which would definitely increase the weight of dragoon as compared to M1126. But you could still try.
1 Like
Well with my report I would be combining the weight of the weapon system plus the hull. I am having some troubles with conflicting values, but even using the largest values, the M1296 is at least 2.5 tons overweight.
1 Like
Neat, also Looks like there should be a cage that encapsulates the gunner (white mesh on the right side in the background) which isn’t present either.
Just for confirmation, that does look like spall liner right?
The white tiling yes, but the cage but would count as a “firewall”, or otherwise as thin plate spall mitigation.
1 Like