This looks awesome!!
From the original picture it looks like they just made the gun barrel super oddly long
1 Like
From my research there have been 5 vehicles fitted with the IWS
- A preseries Leopard 1
- Leopard C1
- M60
- leopard 1A5
- RO2004 (as im sure you know)
So far i have images of the Preseries, C1 and M60. I had thought i had an image of the 1A5 until about 10 minutes ago :P
4 Likes
Win some, lose some
It’s happened to me before. Thought I had a picture of USSR carrier aircraft prototype but it was a prototype for a completely different thing
Just means im back to stage one, its also a bummer because its a really clear image i could have used in the suggestion but hey
as they say, it is what it is
1 Like
leopard for you,
leopard for you,
and a leopard for you too
Leopards for everyone!!!
Yes, that indeed seems to be the case.
1 Like
+1 if this is the only way to get one with the other things I’ll tank it.
1 Like
Huh neat id never seen that before
I don’t think that’s the IWS, I’m almost 100% sure it’s a variant of the 105mm LRF as seen on the Stingray (also the VFM5, but it has a slightly different looking version).
4 Likes
Yeah, no way. We are talking about a round that is around 65mm shorter with 5mm more diameter and going 85m/s slower than. Magically pulling out L27A1 numbers with 230m/s less velocity while L27A1 was in active development simply isn’t happening.
Whenever numbers are given out like this in publications they are almost certainly talking about a 60deg NATO heavy test. Assuming that, we get 270mm@60deg@2km which is around 11mm less than M900 which lines up with the lower velocity.
With all due respect, several Sources support it, the main one i have access to being Janes, However it was also advertised by Royal Ordinance themselves
It was achieved by the gun having an increadibly high pressure in the barrel, so much ao that the Recoil was increadible.
I am no expert on ballistics, but if several reliable sources claim it then im going to assume its true
Ok? the 540mm @2km can be at 60deg without contradicting anything.
Who cares about chamber pressure when the muzzle velocity is given? It’s stated at 1420m/s so the pressure doesn’t matter at all. If what you claim is true then all it means is that its really inefficient converting that chamber pressure to kinetic energy since M900 has a higher velocity it while being a bigger round
So
M900 is
- 700mm long
- 23mm diameter
- going 1505m/s
- It can pen 562mm@60deg@2km
L27A1 is
- 660mm long
- 25mm diameter
- going 1650m/s
- It can pen 622mm@60deg@2km
This round is
- 640mm long
- 28mm diameter
- going 1420m/s
So you can either believe that all references to the pen were actually referring to 60deg pen as is the NATO standard literally everywhere else and the round slightly worse than M900 performs slightly worse than M900.
OR you can believe that this round
-
outperforms M900 by 80mm flat pen by being 60mm shorter and 85m/s slower and magically makes up that gap by being 5mm bigger in diameter
-
Is equal to L27A1 despite being 20mm shorter, 230m/s slower and magically makes up that all up by having a 3mm bigger diameter.
This is also being generous and assuming 60deg as the standard as I’ve seen some people say that British tests will often use 70deg as their standard.
2 Likes
If you’re talking about in-game L27A1 then yes. If you’re talking about real life L27A1 then no. Because real life L27A1 is about equal in performance to M829A1. This could mean that M900 is underperforming and that it could be better than the T-2.
I hope you’re not suggesting that L27A1 and somehow it’s 660mm long projectile is matching the M829A1s 780mm projectile. Even just taking the penetrator length of 684mm that is longer than the entire length of L27A1.
You are also trying to make this claim that M900 is missing what would be almost 100mm of flat pen, but that has magically flown completely under the radar in terms of complaints and bug reports from the largest player base in the game.
So far I’ve pointed out that 60deg is likely accurate as it’s the standard based on NATO heavy triple targets that these tests are done on.
It being 60 deg puts at a 10mm true and 20mm disadvantage to M900 which is quite generous since it sacrifices a lot of length and speed for a bigger diameter.
The only counter arguments are, “actually L27A1 performs the same as a round 120mm longer than it” and “M900 obviously has to be underperforming even though there are no active forum posts or bug reports because 100mm of flat pen is no big deal”
All this mental gymnastics to try and explain why this is the sole exception to everyone measuring 60deg 2km for penetration values.
2 Likes
As @コタリ said, it very likely means at 60°. Even with that, it’s still the second best 105mm round in-game, only slightly beaten by M900. It would fit well at ~10.7 imo.
3 Likes
Yes. Yes I am.
Ignoring the fact that T-2 is comparable to how L27A1 is modelled in game, what’s the best 105 round in game?
M900, which the T-2 is comparable to
1 Like
There are some 105 APFSDS rounds that might be better but are not added yet, namely M428 SWORD (Israel) and M1060A3 (Belgian)