Yeah, that’s what I thought and I agree.
Not to be the guy that says ‘um actually’ but I think this needs to be said.
It’s ‘nasty’ at 9.7 because it’s what the Challenger should be, but it’s armor, including the turret, is total paper. So yes, it’s nasty but relative to the Challenger/ other 9.7s when in reality it’s what/ how the Challenger should play.
Sure it/ you may have a great KD in it, but it’s partially player skill based. Plus, it’s a new vehicle, and while similar to Challenger, is not one, so people are learning how to fight it. (Also it’s a new vehicle.)
You say “Almost an exact copy of the Challenger Mk.2 besides composite makeup of the turret” but also the hulls composite is thinner as well, and it’s coverage is shorter then the Challengers, that is, bigger lower plate.
Yes, no thermals or L23A1, but it doesn’t matter that much considering I do just fine with stock L23A1 (Instead of L27A1) in my Challenger 2 against 12.0s → shows it doesn’t make that much of a difference.
Gen 1 thermals don’t make that much of a difference anyway; they’re not that useful. (At least I can testify this, I’m sure others can) I’m not saying having gen 1 thermals or not shouldn’t change BR, I am saying that it wouldn’t be that different.
And of course you’re fighting ‘significantly weaker opponents’ in a full downtier. Of course an 8.7 that is the T-55AMD-1 is going to struggle. Put it against T-64B or Type 16 or even STRF 90/40B.
Adding more munitions wouldn’t balance it; it’d make it more powerful. (Perhaps another petty reason to move it up!) While yes you provided photographic evidence of a HEAT round, as others have pointed out you provided no further details. Also, Britain didn’t/ doesn’t have the domestic capability to produce HEAT rounds. (Which is why they didn’t) /!\ I don’t have source so it’s just my word for it but I have read that and I’m a mega tank nerd especially for British tanks.
Even if it moves to 10.0 it wouldn’t need L23A1, as I pointed out earlier it doesn’t make much a difference at all. (Expanding on my earlier Challenger 2 example, I’m getting to rank IV modifications and have/ had a 4.0 KD with just it’s stock L23A1.)
That’s all the debunking I have for this one, I feel like I covered everything. Props to all you fellow ‘I disagree with this solution’ voters.
Even if it moves to 10.0 it wouldn’t need L23A1, as I pointed out earlier it doesn’t make much a difference at all
The angled performance of L23A1 is significantly superior to base L23, this can be shown on protection analysis.
And yes, the L23A1 does penetrate the UFP of the T-64B even though it shows that penetration may not be possible
You say “Almost an exact copy of the Challenger Mk.2 besides composite makeup of the turret” but also the hulls composite is thinner as well, and it’s coverage is shorter then the Challengers, that is, bigger lower plate
Firstly there needs to be a clear distinction between “Challengers” and “Challenger 1s” as the Chally 1 and Chally 2 perform vastly differently overall. The hull composite coverage of the FV4030/3 and Challenger 1 are also exactly the same, this also includes protection value.
Challenger 1 UFP
FV4030/3 UFP
The only difference is the side of the turret, which funnily enough is stronger on the FV4030/3.
1 Like
so people really hate when britain has something that’s good?, ugh whatever no point in saying anything, i’m anyways pretty tired.
10 Likes
120S suffer due to shit ass mobility tho
AMBT has no armor
2K is super agile but also fragile
other 2 are decent
10.3 gets uptier more than 10.0 uptier
1 Like
As a general rule of thumb. Yep
I’m literally a British main and I’m from the UK myself, it has nothing to do about hating British vehicles lmao, find another coping method.
I’m 34-7 in this thing and it’s not even fully upgraded 😂 definitely needs moved up
Hate us having good things, complain when we suggest another nations kit.
There is no winning
2 Likes
Perhaps I should’ve been more clear.
You have a fair point on the A1 being able to pen T-64b, the example I had provided. However!: Around this BR/ 9.7s uptiers, and every higher BR bracket, penetrating UFPs and/ or turret fronts is of least concern: past early T-72 models Soviet UFPs can’t be penetrated by kenetic anyway: (With the exception of the LOSAT) Besides the earliest darts, you should never have it your goal to pen an MBT UFP: Dont aim there. Very very bad idea. I used to call L23 bad for being like that, and L26 bad for the same reason: can’t pen UFPs. But top tier is a very different battlefield from the point middle and click of the lower BRs. If you’re having trouble with (non auto cannon) dart pen IMHO that’s entirely on you, you’re improperly using darts. Darts are always aim weak spot
-Driver Port
-LFP
-Breech
-Idler shot
Main gun darts are basically never bad, everybody can pen everybody.
This is hella wordy sorry but I think it gets my point across
L23 is a perfectly capable dart just like others. It’s A1 variant which is massively outclassed at 12.0 works totally fine for me, I’ve killed like 5 T-90m with it. (Haven’t played that much top top tier)
TLDR; ammo isn’t bad it’s how you use it/ the player using it. (Exactly the same philosophy of solid shot)
I admit I could’ve been clearer about Challenger terminology. But the UFP of both tech tree and the premium Challenger 1s are exactly identical to the Challenger 2 hulls.
By less coverage I meant the size/ shape of the plate itself: besides the driver port cut out, chally UFPs are like a T almost. By less coverage on the FV4030/3 I meant the shape is shorter: the stem/ I part of the T is shorter on the bottom end. (Hence bigger LFP as I said)
Sorry again this is really wordy but I think it gets the points across and clears things up.
BR 10.3 seems fair
Is the same BR as the Challenger Mk.2, which is better in every way.
L23A1 cannot penetrate the UFP of a T-64B, not even at point blank range.
You’re simply using the Armour Analysis tool incorrectly.
The constructional angle of the glacis is 68° yet in your example the angle of impact is only 65°, that’s because you’re zoomed in too far and have the camera placed much too high up.
Here’s an explaination:
At what instance is the world perfectly flat, even in-game majority of the time you’re shooting down towards a UFP and especially when you’re playing a much taller vehicle such as the FV4030/3. You’re not taking into account the actual height of other vehicles, but you prefer to measure this at a direct straight angle.
I’ve also tested this in customs with my friends when we do friendly 1vs1s, in-game experience is the best example. L23A1 was capable of handling the T-64B and in some instances, the T-80B (for the T-80B, it was mainly when shooting from hills, doesn’t really count tbf).
You’re going off-topic anyways, keep it related to the Challenger 1, I don’t know how angle and this diagram disproves the effectiveness of L23A1 compared to L23 lmao.
1 Like
It doesn’t have to be.
It’s all explained with very basic maths in the chart, if you’re not interested in reading that chart then I can’t help you from continuing to misinform yourself by mis-using the tool.
Please show it.
Hop on over to the eastern side of the Cargo Port map and then fire at a T-64B at 300 metres distance (being extremely generous with that distance, 300m is well below the average engagement distance) and then show me the results.
None of this is particularly necessary since L23A1 has 396mm of penetration whilst the T-64B has in excess of 400mm of armour, but I get the distinct feeling you won’t be convinced by that.
I don’t know what gave you the impression that was ever something I claimed.
I’m merely informing you that you’re not using the Armour Analysis tool correctly, and that if you continue to do so you’ll keep getting skewed results and thus misinforming yourself.
None of this is particularly necessary since L23A1 has 396mm of penetration whilst the T-64B has in excess of 400mm of armour, but I get the distinct feeling you won’t be convinced by that
Equivalent protection, this equivalent protection can change depending on what type of munition you have selected, the equivalent protection increases on the T-64B when you select L23 but decreases when you select L23A1.
If you decided to carefully read my original message than you’d see the part where I said “L23A1 can/does penetrate the T-64Bs UFP”, I used this wording as there will indeed be instances where L23A1 will be capable of penetrating the UFP of a T-64B.
Did I ever say L23A1 would be capable of reliably doing so? Never lmao - the image I provided was also at 0 metres, this video I also linked is close to 0 metres (and shock, shock, horror, it penetrates like I said).
I only used the T-64B as a basis to show that L23A1 does indeed make a significant difference when compared to L23, something you funnily enough denied - stop focusing on the T-64B but the L23A1 in hand and the performance difference.
And as a reminder, this topic is about the FV4030/3 overperforming - which it absolutely is
1 Like
Not sure why you’re explaining things that I already know.
By that definition I could say there are instances where a US 76mm from a M10 GMC can penetrate the UFP of a Panther.
It’s just twisting your original statement to suit a definition that nobody aside from you in this very specific instance uses.
Here’s what you said: ‘’ And yes, the L23A1 does penetrate the UFP of the T-64B even though it shows that penetration may not be possible ‘’
You claimed the in-game Armour Analysis tool is showing incorrect results. You claimed that in reality L23A1 can penetrate the T-64B even though the Analysis tool claims it may not be possible.
I then explained to you that you’re not using the tool correctly by using a poor camera angle/placement, which you then denied by saying I was not taking into account the height differences of vehicles: ‘’ even in-game majority of the time you’re shooting down towards a UFP and especially when you’re playing a much taller vehicle such as the FV4030/3. ‘’
Followed by:
You then performed the tests which I asked you to perform, you noticed I was 100% correct and L23A1 cannot penetrate the UFP at any distance save for literally point blank range and firing downwards into it (and that’s conveniently without Kontakt-1 installed as well). You then move the goalpost to a definition that nobody uses.
Like I said, the Armour Analysis tool doesn’t lie, you were just using a poor camera angle. That’s all this is.
I hope we’ve cleared this up now.
Qoute me where I denied this.
You then performed the tests which I asked you to perform, you noticed I was 100% correct and L23A1 cannot penetrate the UFP at any distance save for literally point blank range and firing downwards into it (and that’s conveniently without Kontakt-1 installed as well) . You then move the goalpost to a definition that nobody uses
You’re actually hilarious, I used both the T-64B in protection analysis in my original test for L23A1 and today in the video I provided, I never mentioned the T-64BV (designation for the T-64B with Kontakt-1).
I also talked about the Challenger 1s height being a factor for testing at close ranges as it’s significantly taller than the T-64B, this was demonstrated in said video which you irrationally dismissed.
Thirdly, the angle in which was used in protection analysis would represent the angle used in-game from close ranges, this was showcased in the video I provided. Nothing about this was wrong, you posted a irrelevant diagram which I did indeed thoroughly read but according to you, I didn’t.
You claimed the in-game Armour Analysis tool is showing incorrect results. You claimed that in reality L23A1 can penetrate the T-64B even though the Analysis tool claims it may not be possible
No, I said that even though it showcases penetration may or may not be possible, penetration can still be achieved. If you’re going to misquote me, make it subtle at least.
Qoute me where I denied this
You’re fighting tooth and nail to deny something which isn’t even important to the conversation, my point is that the L23A1 can indeed penetrate the T-64B, I tested this initially in protection analysis at 0 metres and you say the angle is wrong, I test this in-game then you say “that’s conveniently without Kontakt-1” and you continue to deny the most obvious of things.
You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, you refuse to be wrong and want to drag this conversation out, none of this subtracts from the fact that L23A1 is a big step from L23, keep on fighting for nothing ig.
1 Like
Shir is a royal pain to deal with in the already pretty bad 9.7 and 9.3 BR french lineup, an uptier with small buffs is perfectly reasonable.
Brit mains coped about the Centurion mk3 going up to 7.7 BR when it used to be 6.7 but it’s still incredibly strong there. The Shir will still be strong at 10.0 or 10.3 BR.
T-64B is the name of the vehicle regardless of whether or not Kontakt-1 is installed in War Thunder, hence why that name can be applied to both versions.
Then there was no need to bring up the ‘‘One vehicle is taller than the other’’ argument as that is already addressed in the chart.
The height differences between vehicles are completely negligible in the outcome of whether or not a penetration can be achieved.
No, you’ve just invented a completely arbitrary situation in which L23A1 achieves a penetration which you claimed it was capable of.
Nobody in War Thunder fights consistently at 5 metres distance from eachother, it’s utterly meaningless.
L23A1 is superior to L23, but claiming that L23A1 is suddenly capable of penetration a T-64B is simply false, and a poorly placed camera angle in the Armour Analysis tool doesn’t help prove that.
In other words: You couldn’t find a qoute.
Next time don’t accuse people of making arguments they never actually made.
I’ll leave it here as I don’t have any interest in going in circles over and over again for the next 3 days.