Thankyou sir, doing gods job for him. I haven’t seen anyone else notice this and present it so hopefully they accept it as it is from the documents they themselves have quoted from.
2 Likes
As an addendum, the following image showing the interior of BRAT (Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles) that are mentioned in the brochure, as is evident they use similar layout to Kontact-5 (Heavy type; overlapping, angled flier plates) ERA bricks, and so should have similar protective ratios between KE and CE threats(~1:3), not those of Kontact-1 bricks (~1:13).
14 Likes
We wait to see if they change ASPRO-HMT on the TES/OES or ROMOR on the Challenger 1/2 and hope they do.
2 Likes
Is it just me or are the flier plates in the X-ray upside down?
1 Like
Dont appear to be.
Holy shit, our tanks may actually become worth the weight…. Here’s just hoping they fix the challengers, not great odds considering it’s British but here’s hoping.
5 Likes
Maybe just a bug?
1 Like
Visual model copied over from egg-box relict I think
meanwhile the leclerc is dying…
2 Likes
Hello
Please make a report so it can be properly forwarded and logged.
4 Likes
Ok, will be done in a minute
1 Like
added to the list for you
1 Like
Thank you, but this is not what I meant. This doesn’t actually detail how the CR.2 is incorrect or how it should be. That should be the context and focus of the report.
It does. It talks about ASPRO-HMT and the STANAG protection of it. I explain there that STANAG for Fully engineered targets, that ASPRO block is, are preformed from their strikeface, not from the front of the vechicle it will be mounted on, as developers were testing before.
7 Likes
You will need to explain that the aspro meets stanag by itself in accordance to the tests you show in the report, and then explain because of that the aspro doesn’t meet the requirements when on the Cr2
Ehh, will sit to the report again in a sec then
Doesn’t that report already exist?