Understandably the UK MOD don’t go publicising the specifics of in-service ammunition. However…
Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank 1987-2006 Simon Dunstan, page5
‘Charm 3 comprised a new DU APFSDS projectile, L271A1 with a new propellant charge L16A1 (later L17A1) that gave a 25 percent greater penetration capability than the L26 round, together with the necessary sighting racking and storage items for Challenger 2’.
It stands to reason that the greater penetrative force would counteract the X percentage reduction (whatever the latest Russian claim is) of ERA such as K5 and Relikt on older rounds such as L26*. The UK had already got it’s hands on a fairly modern T-80U by that point (1992) - so it isn’t a massive leap of imagination to suspect that they would have designed the new round to deal with it.
*E.g. a 10% reduction in penetration from Heavy ERA would be moot if the new round has 25% more penetration than the old round.
Edit - just realised I didn’t really answer your question! I don’t know if it has a redesigned ERA-defeating tip; finding public sourcing on this stuff is a bit vague.
Typically, nations with an incentive to overhype their tech go bragging about specifications everywhere, like Russia and China. Unsurprisingly, their tech almost always fails to meet the advertised specs when combat tested. For Western countries the opposite is often true - they want to keep the performance of their tech secret to keep Russia/China in the dark about capabilities.
GJN can’t really take a “We are going to believe what western militaries say, but accept that Russia and China are probably lying” stance. The easiest option is to take everyone’s claims at face value. Unfortunately, this results in the game being a Soviet/Sino military fantasy where their vehicles actually work as they claim for once.
The only way around it is to just say ‘sod it’ and accept that accurate figures are impossible for any modern vehicle post-1990. If a vehicle is struggling in performance - give it a bit more pen or bump the armour figures up a notch. Do the reverse if the vehicle is overperforming. After all, nobody can say (without breaking the Official Secrets Act) whether X or Y figure is definitely correct or incorrect so take advantage of those variables.
If those metrics are applied equally then all claims of bias or favouritism vanish overnight.
It’s a single plate, just that the side isn’t modeled, only the front and rear face of that single plate. You can see it on some other vehicles particularly old ones, that’s a visual issue.
The issue is the cent mk10 is missing it’s trunnion, known issue forever but gaijin doesn’t care I guess
Meanwhile, In other news, Oleg was fishing down the back of the sofa the other day for some more Anti-Freeze and found the sekrit plans for an Object 123456 hover-tank. It had a main gun with excellent NATO-beating levels of penetration on account of it being a laser cannon, the same ‘thin side armour’ of the T-80BSBVM and had the ability to fly at Mach 2.
It was immediately forwarded to the devs for inclusion in the next patch.
This despite the plans being doodled in crayon on the back of an envelope by a bored toddler. The toddler’s parents had a neighbour with a long distant cousin who once lived in a caravan next door to one of the tea ladies who worked in the Uralmash Tractor Tank factory canteen. So obviously it is a primary source.
Edit: LOL at the guy who flagged this post. Probably RazerMuppet or whatever his name is this week…
From what Ive read it isnt an anti-era tip like m829a2 or dm53 use but that the round is intentionally designed shorter and stubbier than other contemporary rounds, sacrificing raw penetration for a higher resistance to the “snapping” that heavy ERA uses to defeat apfsds. Considering Britain was involved in m829a2’s development before designing L27a1 its fair to assume that they saw some benefit in this design and this trade was worthwhile
