It doesn’t have that ingame so it’s just worse than the Shot Kal Alef.
Because of compression and how gaijin balances the game?
You know as well as I do what shoudl happen is the shot kal alef moves up, not the cent down.
We firing different L23? it’s only advantage over A1 is higher flat pen by about 13mm at closer ranges. L23 for is super inconsistant and half the time will do either nothing or nuke em.
Personally have far better luck / experience with the A1 variant.
Also doesn’t help the L23 itself isn’t even real
heres 2 exhibits of L23 doing absolutely hee haw.
Should of nuked the crew, spalled into the turret ring slightly on a leo1 and hit the driver.
On the STRF 40 it did basically nothing other than take out what you can see.
I know it’s worse than L23A1 but I genuinely have absolutely 0 complaints about L23 at 9.0. Its not an overpowered round like the Sabra has and neiter is it an underpowered round like the one on the Rooikat Mk1D.
I think if L23 had such problems I would have noticed by now.
I know but if it stop the Chieftain from being overtiered it should stay. There’s a lot more stuff that’s historically inaccurate and really needs to be fixed.
This happens to every APFSDS though? This wouldn’t have happened with APHE but I don’t see how L23A1 would have prevented the spall getting eaten by modules or crew for no reason.
1 Like
203.2mm to be precise.
2 Likes
L23A1 spalls better as well as in my experience doesn’t randomly spall in chunks like that.
No it shouldn’t at all.
Making fake rounds exist isn’t an answer to balance dude, thats no better than WoT with fake tanks.
Give it L15A5 and its correct values and remove the l23 from the game.
L23A1 would make the mk10 9.3.
Sabra is 10.0, which should be higher cause that merkava round is beyond potent, i recently got the mk3B and C and the apfsds is brilliant.
However L23 not only for me has been inconsistent as hell, it also isn’t real.
Want me to document it each and every time?
L15 can UFP a t64A and L23 can UFP a T72A ?
L23 should be removed, L15A5 in game should be buffed, it’s pen is far too low, then given to the tanks in placement of adding L23A1 and see how they do.
The mk10 however only fired L23A1 that is the issue.
It would increase its BR.
Not that id want it to, but it woulf
What I mean is that they should be able to pierce the UFP, with the L15A3 having some difficulty and the L23 easily, being somewhat more difficult with the T-72A, since it has slightly better armor than the T-64A.
You’re right. Just because the L23 existed as a prototype or whatever doesn’t mean it should be in the game. Otherwise, they should also add, for example, the American M735A1, which was a prototype version of the M735 and was scrapped.
I don’t think it’s right to say that the Chieftain Mk10, upon receiving the L23A1, necessarily needs to have its Br increased, as it’s a fairly low penetration improvement. In any case, what could be done is to give the T-64A more realistic armor and lower its Br, while increasing the Br of the T-72A and M1.
Ugh, if you think about it seriously, this game would need a rework of penetration, damage, and armor, and after doing a decompression and changing the Br on practically all tanks from Era 4 onwards. What a poor job the developers have done.
1 Like
Realistically the L15A5 should do the job of the L23 and have the same penetration values for the most part if not slightly higher:
That’s the damn issue, it wasn’t a prototype, Gaijin are literally the only folks who I’ve seen without source say the L23 was a prototype round, any book or source from either the national archives from royal ordencance state L23A1 or just generalised it as L23 , both with the exact same numerical data for penetration values.
For example, the Imperial war museum has it registered as L23 sabot round, yet the actual photo it can clearly be seen as L23A1.
It wen’t into service after CR1 did as CR1 used the same gun as cheiftain.
See the issue here, it’s not that it’s a prototype round, it’s a fake round.
It’s a massive improvement in the angle area allowing for the capabilities of penetrating higher angled armour at farther distances.
the system they use for penetration is pretty unstable, most rounds especially darts have lower penetration values compared to IRL , L27A1, 3BM60 etc are all technically under performing in game compared to IRL due to the system used, I can’t even remember it’s full name.
Armour is a catch 22, the T64A has its historical armour, it just wasn’t that advanced compared to the rounds it faced. Don’t get me wrong , it was and is a heavily armoured tank, just the composites weren’t as advanced as what we see now adays.
Here as proof, Imperial war museum refering to the L23A1 as L23
1 Like
I just remembered that the MBT-80 was a thing and now I’m sad that we are getting the Chief 900 before the MBT-80 :(
1 Like
It is the balance of reality. As soon as it came out, the T-64 was the best tank in the world, leaving obsolete all the 90, 84 and 105mm ammunition, being only the Chieftain the one that could face it with some possibilities, but soon ammunition such as the M735 would be developed and then the American M774 or the British L15A5. Then the Soviets had an advantage with the T-72A, until the British with the L23A1, and the Germans and Israelis with the DM23-M111 surpassed the armor of the T-72A forcing the Soviets to add an extra armor plate on the T-72A (1982), then the Germans and Israelis developed the DM33-M413 and the Americans with the M833 surpassed that armor.
is there an MBT-80 suggestion?
1 Like
Pretty bold statement that one mate? got a source to prove it was the best tank?
Considering it had massive issues with its engine, transmission, auto loader and even the fuel tanks as far as I am aware.
The Cheiftain Mk5 could beat the T64 frontally, L15A3 could as far as I am aware punch through the UFP within a 2km range. This also translated extremely well for the L15A5 which was just the same round but improved upon .
Again where are you getting that information from? the T72A armour array was worse than that of the T64, it was designed to be cheaper and mass produced specifically for export initially.
the L15A5 round was more than capable of taking out a T72, hence why we didn’t change the ammo up until into the 80s. In which we realised the newer T64BV could overmatch effectively out range the chieftains by about 600 meters at least, AKA 2KM chieftain could take out the T64, but T64 could take out chieftain at 2600 meters if I remember rightly.
L23A1 was fielded around 1985, a whole 13 years after the T72 was in service, as well as a year or so after CR1 was entered into service.
So no the L23A1 wasn’t designed due to the T72A, it was designed to defeat the T72B then the L26A1 to defeat T72B 1989 as well as the more modern T80s.
There isn’t one
I think the lack of data on the gun is a big problem, otherwise it would basically be a Shir 2 with a Challenger 1 engine and thermals.
But this might be too much of a Yak-141 situation for Gaijin tbh, which is kind of unfortunate
1 Like
Like everything new, it had problems, but it is undeniable that when it appeared, it had more armor than anything NATO had, and only the Chieftain could pierce it.
It would be interesting to see firing tests, but personally I think it’s too much to be able to pierce it at 2km.
I think you are confusing the T-72 Ural (the first model) with the T-72A (1979). Besides, the T-72 was never designed as an export tank, it was simply another design that competed with the T-64.
The L23A1 is from 1983, while the T-72A is from 1979 and the T-72A and M1 with added armor is from 1982.
had more armour sure, but it wasn’t some Uber tank like you’re making it out ot be, you claimed it was the best tank in the world when it was plagued with issues.
The tank museums chat on chieftain mentions about it, Be it the L15A5 or L15A3, the mk5 was firing the A5 , im stating as far as I know the A3 could as well within that 2km range, maybe should specify that.
The soviet union at the time decided it was to be sold as an export vehicle and only produced for the military when needed as a back up to the T64s.
The bovington tank chat covers that.
Not always 100 percent accurate but agoogle search will tell you the T72 was designed with export in mind from the get go.
The 1979 model as far as I can see features the same upgrades as the T72B with enhanced composites on the turret.
And the change from a steel hull to composite hull.
Again the Chieftain L15A5 could penetrate this, at about 1500 meters I believe it was.
Apolgies aye 1983 fielded after CR1 was in service so again, L23 cannot exist as a round.
So again without taking this off topic, the L23 round itself isn’t a real piece of ammunition used by anyone, there was L23A1 and that is it.
L23A1 was very much developed as a response to T-64 and T-72. Around 1977 the MOD grew concerned about the protection offered by the T-64 / T-72 and started drafting requirement GSR 3758 for a new APFSDS round for Chieftain (L23 / L23A1 whatever you want to call it). Once they realised what the protection of T-64 and T-72 could be the programme was given operational emergency status and full development started in 1980, with the round entering service in 1983.
Spoiler
If you don’t believe me here’s a declassified document from the National Archives:
1 Like
You told me the L23A1 entered service in 1985. I’ve posted an image from the Gulf War, comparing the L23A1 and the L26A1. The L23A1 bullet, which shows it belongs to batch 028 of the 7th of 1983, suggests the L23A1 entered service in 1983, or that the British spent at least two years in storage without putting them into service (which would be odd).
Another interesting fact is the L26A1, which, based on the numbers, would show it was a bullet that arrived right at the time of the Gulf War, since Operation Granby began on January 6, 1991, and the L26A1 in the photo appears to be from batch 02 of December 1990.
L26A1 was indeed rushed into service early for the Gulf War (and known as Jericho 2).
2 Likes