Yes, and another thing I didn’t know is that the Challenger 2 cannon can be fired with a more powerful propellant, which is why the L26A1 fired by the Challenger 2 penetrated more.
Why would i not believe you.
As I’ve stated god knows how many times, as far as im aware or statements to that affect means im not an authority of the subject and it’s just from what I’ve been told / know.
Also from the national archives ? They told me the information for the L11 cannon was classified as well as the information on L15A5 as im trying to get exact ballistic values for it.
Any idea how to contact them in a more formal manner to request the information.
I stated as far as im aware.
You can search all the documents they hold here:
However, it is often not entirely straightforward to find what you are looking for. More often than not what the National Archives hold is a folder of vaguely related documents listed under a generic folder title. So If you want to find specific information you really need to visit in person, order a bunch of folders with the right topic and time period, and hope for the best.
2 Likes
Maybe some of it is. But there is a hell of a lot that is not.
Honestly the Tank Museum at Bovington might be the best people to enquire with about that. They probably have something about it in their archives, and it will probably be easier to find.
1 Like
Maybe these sorts of documents would hold something:
Unfortunately you aren’t going to be able to tell if they are about L15A5 without getting a copy (by visiting in person or paying a bunch of money for someone to copy them) and reading them.
2 Likes
As I requested online , as well as I believe was too vague so there’s likely that reason.
Same folks who said chieftain could penetrate the T64A ufp at 2000 meters, before cr1 was being made but would of ended up over matched as t64 could do the same but at 2600 hundred meters.
Issue is I’d need to enquire online 🤔
I appreciate this man! Ill give them a look tonight.
I have a few chieftain books what mention L15A5 being a denser alloy and better penetrator but no specification
EDIT As well @Flame2512 How are you feeling abotu the new chieftain? I for one am absolutely extatic about it!
It’s no different to giving rounds fake performance to keep them at their BR. Look at the MBT-70 series.
L15A5 would simply be nerf. I’d rather keep the fake round than having to deal with APDS.
Sorry but I haven’t seen anyone other than you complain about L23 being inconsistent.
It is very different as the round penetration is calculated by the french system i cant remember the name of, well half of it.
The L23 didn’t exist at all, only L23A1, Lets Just give the T29 a 105 apds round cause it has a 105 gun.
Not if it’s actually properly modelled 😂😕 hence the issue, the apds as well on chieftain is extemely strong.
First time for everything mate.
L23 is L23A1. It just has worse performance than it had irl on the Chieftain just like XM578 is weaker than it was irl on the MBT-70
Not the same. It would be comparable if T13 had worse performance on the T95 than it has on tje T29.
You’re complaining about L23 spall damage but want it to receive APDS, a round that even in its strongest form has much less consistent spalling than L23.
L23 is not L23A1, L23A1 is the service round that was used by both the MK10 chieftain, MK11 cheiftain and CR1s mate.
There is no such record as has been proven time and time again that L23 was some early prototype round of the L23A1 bar what gaijin have stated with no sources or evidence to back it up.
Hell they even proved that by admitting the MK10 should have the L23A1 round. L23 in game should not be a round, it should be L23A1 that is it . Period.
Fake ammunitions should not be put in game.
again as I’ve stated what twice now? this is due to how gaijin calculates penetration, almost every APFSDS in game is lacking penetration due to the system they use. Why are you actively ignoring that fact.
Again no, the L23A1 roudn found on CR1 should be exactly the same as the L23A1 round used on the mk10 chieftain, it’s the exact same cannon.
L23 itself is again, a fabricated round that even Smin has stated the gaijin dev team believed to be a prototype with lower penetration, which means they have no credible source to site as. Which has been demanded time and time again.
I want historical accuracry with balance, I don’t want the L15A5 round which replaced L15A3 to have identical penetration values, that is just ridiculous, when in reality L15A5 should have comparable values to the L23 we have in game.
L23A1 should be added to the vehicles that fired it. Or remove the L23 and give them correct L15A5 and adjust the BR accordingly.
This nonsense of give it fake ammo to make it sit somewhere has to end, as it just causes yet more doors to open for false BS to be added to the game for the sake of it
Shir 2 the FV4030/3 for example didn’t fire an APFSDS as was proved I believe by @Jarms with a book showing how it should have access to APDS, HEAT FS, Smoke round as well as a HESH round:
I may be wrong but Jarms tends to know the score here.
L23A1 is the service name of the L23 round, there should be no difference between them. Unless you’ve got some sort of source that no one else has proving L23 is a round.
Hell the Mk10 went into service with still brew after L23A1 went into service, so how could it fire a worse version of the round?