Thanks for spelling out the reasoning, and yes the UK 9.0 line-up will benefit from having another MBT.
Any comment on the L23 vs. L23A1 also discussed above? L23A1 was the initial APFSDS in UK service with the Chieftains & Challengers, and the UK Land naming convention always uses A1 on the first model.
This round is also referred to as L23 in the same document (Chieftain Armaments Pamphlet 1988), but only as shorthand for the full name.
There is currently an open (internal now as its from the old forum) report regarding a suggestion to remove L23.
The devs current working understanding is that the A1 designation was added to shells when they entered service and the versions without this were for trials / testing / development.
Until more conclusive information can be found, there are no current plans to remove the shell.
would be be able to expect A1 to be added to the tail end of L26 then?
Phrasing? I’m a little concerned by the thought of “removing” the round as it was present on Chieftain Mk 10. The question should rather be of replacing L23 with L23A1 as its presence seems to be a legacy error.
Do you think the change would be significant enough to change Mk 10’s BR?
Report;
Chieftain Mk 10 APFSDS version incorrect
Just for clarity; Mk 10 is Mk 9 with CPP, which means it was built to /4 standard and received the APFSDS ready racks.
If it were to be removed, then naturally it would need to be replaced with something. But that would likley impact any BRs for any tanks where its a top shell.
Finally some good news
But will the turret head at least add some meaningful protection over the Mk5 against weaker shells? Only 0.3 higher is the Khalid which is a lot more mobile.
Why? L23A1 is better than L23 but it’s not a huge jump in performance. In the last update the T114 went from 16 hp/t to 24 hp/t which is a massive upgrade but didn’t move in BR at all.
Its angle pen and over all pen is substantially more reliable allowing higher spall from each shot
Any notification on the L15A5?
It has the incorrect values in game as well i think @Jarms made a report on it.
Even massive nerfs don’t seem to impact BR’s. I literally halved the Fox’s turret traverse and it still went up to 8.0
Thank you for your explanation, I guess that is reasonable and I welcome a new Cheiftain at 9.0
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/kBDyXv4H7817
With regards to the Cheiftain Mk.5 and Mk.10, do you know if gaijin have taken a look at this report, their horsepowers are both quite incorrect at the moment. The MK.10 should be around 850ps and the MK.5 should be around 730ps, currently both are 760ps.
Ty :)
In all fairness, soon after they nerfed the turret traverse, they buffed its turning ability (wheel angle) which hugely buffed its mobility
It was kind of a trade off
Tbh the Fox was kind of annoying and with the BTR-80 at 7.3 it shouldn’t be 7.7.
What I’m more annoyed by at 8.0 is the Centurion Mk10. It only has 12.5 hp/t, a 35 kph top speed and the bad APDS while the Shot Kal Alef gets 14.5 hp/t, 48 kph and the much more reliable APDS with performance closer to the Chieftains APDS than the Cent Mk10.
How the hell are those the same BR???
The Mk10 should really go down to 7.7 it’s just so ass to play.
That really wouldn’t matter.
L23 at 10.0 as the top round for the FV4030 is too weak and at 10.0 L23A1 would be a buff it needs in uptiers. In downtiers it makes no difference.
L23 at 9.0 already does enough spall and the targets it can’t pen won’t be penned by L23A1 either.
the Mk.10 would deserve 8.0 more if its mantlet was modelled properly.
It should have a mantlet of around 300mm of thickness, we have proof. Gaijin have yet to change it, and it still has a very weak 152mm mantlet to this day.
How would that not matter for the Mk900? it would make it 9.7 at least due to how reliable the round is in comparison to the L23.
They quite clearly could be espcially considering it’s an extra what near 40 angle pen ?
The flat pen is largely unimportant past the high 300s
It gets that due to isreal upgrading it to make it more combat effective for longer.
The british never upgraded our centurions that way unfortunately.
I cant fully agree or disagree with that, on the fence with it tbh
It should be noted that the Centurion Mk 10 is missing the L52A1(M728) and about 100mm of armor on the mantlet.
I think that the change from L23 to L23A1 should not have a change of Br in the Chieftain Mk10. With the vehicles you find you can kill them without problems with the L15A3, L23 and L23A1. On the other hand, with the T-64A and B, T-72A, M1 and B you must shoot at small weak points with the L15A3 and L23, while with the L23A1 you can face the first T-64A and T-72A. This makes two possibilities clear. One would be that the L23A1 bullet is not a great advantage. The other possibility is that the British bullets need an adjustment, adding an L15A5 that could pierce the T-64A and T-72A with certain guarantees, that the L23 would ensure the power to defeat those two tanks without any problem, and finally that the L23A1 was already capable of defeating even the T-72M1 without problems and the T-64B with certain difficulties.
Yes I know but why are they the same BR? Why isn’t the M60 120S at 8.0 too its just an upgraded M60 after all.
What are you talking about? L23 is extremely reliable and does exactly what you expect. Nothing more, nothing less. L23A1 will sometimes pen the T-72 UFP sometimes, that’s the only difference you will notice in a match.