For example, here:
Spoiler
The worst part, in my humble opinion, is that I have actual tape measurements of Puma’s armor layers - but certain technical moderators do not take too kindly to facts (cough vladuxa cough).
They pretended not to see
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
How do people still not understand that DM53 & DM63 are the exact same performing APFSDS shot, DM63 just has a different propellant, that makes the shot more stable at different ambient temperatures, and lowers barrel wear.
Even DM73 isn’t anything much different to write home about.
1 Like
Care to show where it says that?
A staff requirement is just that, a requirement. They detail what a piece of equipment is required to do in order to be accepted. It is entirely possible for equipment to exceed the staff requirement, but if equipment fails to meet the requirement then the contractor has to either make it meet the requirement or get the MOD to agree to the current performance.
A good example is the Challenger 2 being delivered in 1994, but not meeting the reliability requirements set out in SR(L) 4026. As a result the MOD made Vickers improve the reliability and they met the requirement in 1997, leading to acceptance in 1998.
The point went straight over your head.
DM63 is stable. It doesnt explode when hit.
So no ammo rack explosion can ocure.
They want it added for that aspect only.
More safety more surviveability
This implementation is a double edged sword, because as soon as it gets added literally everybody else will want it, or an analog for their respective country, leading to the advantage for Britain being negated.
Even if it shouldn’t go to other nations, people will complain and complain until it gets added to their tank.
Spoiler
From a US document comparing M1A2 with the ‘2A5’.
It is entirely possible for equipment to exceed the staff requirement
True, but it’s also more than likely to simply meet the requirements than to exceed them as that’s cheaper to do than to “overarmor”. If it had exceeded the staff requirements as well, they wouldn’t have looked into the possibility of “stretching” the armor.
My point is, at the end of the day, that the “Stretch” is what has likely became Challenger 2s turret armor.
So it’s from the US and thus completely irrelevant 😂😂
That’s my point.
Wait, i think im missing something.
Because USA had some inaccuracies (and what you said is a lie, they obviously say they have blow out panels) in their documents, UK documents are not to be trusted?
Also i wanted to avoid that, as i do not have any source to prove it, but DL1 was also upgraded. Who much, when? Idk. All i know it did.
There is no analog thats the thing.
Official users are britain, germany , hungary.
They could get them for their leos.
Any other would be a case of fantasy implementation like dm53 for arietes
No, it’s that US documents about foreign vehicles are not to be trusted because they twist the facts in more ways than one, here’s another example;
They claim Leopard 2s have a bullet-trap (due to wedges), but modern projectiles don’t really bounce, they shatter and those pieces are what flies off, not to mention the angle isn’t high enough for the wedge to deflect anything.
I never said anything about not trusting UK documents, did I? It was you who brought up “NA”.
Yep UK NA
That literally says that the Leopard 2 does have blow out panels:
Entire Leo 2, Step 2 compartment often) blown off despite some blow-off panels.
1 Like
???
I’m so confused since for me, NA simply stands for “North America” which is synonymous for most with “US”.
United Kingdom National Archives
I guess i did not explained that. My bad here.
Hecking.