It also lists L23 not L23A1 soo we need to see, Genuinely believe it can’t be that low.
Aye I wish it had the Chobham tbh man
Im reckoning it’ll be 9.3 as a sidegrade to the khalid not a downgrade.
the FV4030/3 should be fine with L23A1 , it would likely hit 10.3 though.
I think this has been repeated to the point of numbness at this stage man.
Let’s see, I’m not saying that the image isn’t good, but it is a bit curious. If you look closely, there are some letters and numbers below, which are the production data. On the L23 it says RLB (Royal Laboratory Batch) and the numbers 3/84, which indicates that this ammunition came out in the third batch of 1984. On the other hand, the L23A1 ammunition is from the 4th batch of 1983. What I find strange is that if the L23 ammunition was immediately replaced by the L23A1, a training version was manufactured after the training version of the A1 model.
That is a good point.
But its atleast some evidence L23 existed in SOME capacity.
Maybe just as a experimental thing, But it atleast did exist. Its possible the L23A1 RLB is a prototype for the coming replacement of L23, Maybe L23 stayed in service for a bit longer than originally thought.
WHO KNOWS, british tanks and Mks and such are a Engima alot of the times. I have found like 3 different references to the Totem Pole Program over the years, all of which are entirely different in how the Upgrade packages went. Some of the Sources say the Chieftains have had Thermals Since Mk5, others say the Mk10 was the first to get thermals, others say the Mk11 was the only one to get thermals. (but considering i have pictures of a mk5 with thermals… ehh who knows)
If there was a prototype version of the L23, and during testing they decided to improve it even further and have it enter service as the L23A1, I’m not saying no. But to be honest, I wouldn’t want the developers to give a tank that entered service a prototype round to justify not increasing its Br. To be fair, a Chieftain Mk10 with the L23A1 would be practically the same as it is now, except that it could better face the T-64 and T-72.
That’s why I say that if the L23 is a round that never entered service and was only a prototype, it should at most be a transitional round until the L23A1 is released, and not the final round for any tank (well, prototype tanks like the future Chieftain 900).
I’ll probably never play this tank, nor anything in the UK line, but y’all ought to just add it with the marketed Chobham. More fun for the whole community that way.
I mean the Chieftain 900 is too old to even use L23 or L23A1, Same for the Shir 2. both tanks design programs were canceled before the rounds existed.
They should BOTH be using L15A5, PROPER L15A5, not the copy and paste Junk Gaijin Gave the Shir 2 that is just L15A3 with a new name.
Same for the Khalid NGL. all 3 tanks got L23 for no reason.
just because people complain about APDS, despite the fact British Gen 2 APDS is really good, and rarely ever shatters, or even bounces.
I was excited at first, because I thought it would get L26 with it being a more recent development than the Shir 2, but with just L23 or even L23A1 I don’t really care about it.
The Olifant Mk.2 is a much better tank overall for my playstyle.
It had the OPTION to, this is after the British army cut the program and ROF started looking into the Export market for the program.
The original British army version had the L11A5 barrel, Which was designed for use with Fin ammo, but none had been developed yet when the L11A5 entered service. So they use stuck with L15A5 until The APFSDS was ready(Which wouldn’t happen until after the British army discontinued the Chieftain 900 program)
A decent 9.3 MBT would be a pretty good addition, where as L26 would probably place it at 10.3/10.7 with no TVD? where we already have quite a solid line-up.
L26 is still worse than DM63 in most cases, and the Olifant Mk2 has better armor and mobility than this Chieftain will.
And the Olifant Mk2 is only 9.3 so…
900 is from 81-82. This brochure is from 84. Well within Fin years.
You guys added the fake F-16AJ based on a brochure… But won’t add the armor for this tank based on a brochure…
OK.
Try having 1 consistent set of rules for things, that way less people are annoyed and can point at your contradictions.
It would be 10.0 at most because of its feature set. But you’re right, I could totally see Gaijin giving it a 10.3 BR because they don’t seem to understand the concept of glass cannons
Again, the 900 was discontinued from British testing in 82.
This is for the EXPORT version, that never got finished, Nor sold to anyone.
The VFM-5 had the option for Thermals, yet doesn’t have them in game so…
COUGH 2 Fake russian battleships added in one update that never could have been built COUGH
You are too fixated on the British trials. Nowhere it is stated we are getting that exact version.
It litterally is. The Export models were going to have Hydro-Pneumatic suspension, Thermals, COMPOSITE ARMOR.
The one being added to the game is just a Chieftain with a new engine and some sheet metal thrown on it, which is what the British tested.
Yeah, also dont forget the Britain Tax.
If I could pick a BR and a combo of buffs/equipment could be changed to achieve that BR. I think Id want something for the 9.3 line-up maybe, to go alongside the VFm5 and still leaving the Mk10 as a good secondary. 9.3 would also avoid the worst of the 10.7 premiums, though would probably still face the rather toxic 10.3 premiums
Some decent options for 9.7 could work too, as we have a few orphaned vehicles like the Rapier and it elimates the issue of no decent 9.0/9.3 SPAA option.
Between the Chally 1/FV4030/3 and Vickers Mk7 we dont really need anything for 10.3/10.7 and I have reservations about the FV4030/3 effectiveness at 10.0. It can survive a hit, but I find the L23 sometimes just… doesnt do much and the uptiers can be a little brutal. Especially with no TVD
