Yes, the Chieftain can penetrate a T-55AM-1, I already knew that, and also the 105mm M728.
In that case I was talking about the L28A1-M392A1 ammunition.
Note that both the 120mm L15A3 and the 105mm M728 are made of tungsten alloy, so spaced armor will not cause bullet breakage.
The issue is that it wasnt one or two shots, eight shots is a substantial amount of rounds to be put down as just " a game glitch"
Yes but it did not stop it eight consecutive times.
Both of which can go through the UFP of a T55AM1 considering the tanks that fire them sit at a higher angle to the T55, and considering that if it goes through the right hand side of the upper side of hte UFP it will take out 3 of the crew.
I find it impossible that eight rounds of good APDS couldnt take out the T55A you say it was?
That’s what happened, believe me or not is your problem. It bothered me more since I was the one who suffered it, what happens is that after so many games of this game and seeing how there are continually bullets that do no damage or when they penetrate they do minimal damage, well, it seemed to me within the extreme of the error, I was not surprised either.
No the problem is here, is you are on a post about the chieftain, where we are all interested in teh chieftain talking about how a T55A somehow survived 8 shots from a centurion,
None of that is realistically related to chieftain, and the original comment about the t55s was compering chieftain with them.
It’s also not a case of believing it. There is only one functional way for it to be true and that would be if you, continuously shot an empty spot, or broken module on the tank, it takes 13 seconds roughly for a crew member to swap out, if you continuously shot the same spot that had killed 2 crew, you would of killed a third one.
Ima guess your centurion Mk10 crew isnt aced, but for the sake of it, well use its aced stats as reference for how long eight shots takes
6.7 x 8 = 53.6
that means he could of replaced the crew at most four times in that period.
Hence why we are saying that you are lying.
How about this. APDS causes considerably more spall than APCR or APBC , I got one tapped by a somau Sm earlier through the back of the tank, and the little spalling it has killed three out of the four crew.
You are obviously lying mate, and that is okay.
Here is a T55A in the projection analysis, here is just one round of L28A1 to the rear side at 61 degrees of angle, that takes out more than half of the tank, it also blows up the ammo and exits the otherside of the tank.
there is absolutely no way in hell that it soaked eight of these rounds in the same spot. what map was it on? ill go through your replays and find it even just to prove myself wrong cause itll be one hell of a replay to watch.
As well as all of this, NONE of it is related to the cheiftain at all, a tank which you dont even have yet. so please, refrain from derailing the topic completely.
1 Like
Well, think what you want, it’s not my problem, it’s a useless waste of time, and as you said, let’s get off topic.
What a response to being proved wrong xD so either you admit you cant aim worth a damn, or youre lying.
Adios.
1 Like
Oh no, I’m not wrong, but since you’re not going to convince yourself that there can be serious errors in penetrations and damage, well, it’s like talking to a rock, and to waste more time writing for nothing, I’d rather play some games, which is a better way to spend time.
Arreando que es tarde.
Can we have this go back to being about the Chieftain IDEK what this convo is about.
1 Like
The l7 can pen the t55 and the t55amd.
The point you should be arguing is that you have to spend extra time aiming for a specific weak point, whereas the t55 can just shoot practically anywhere.
Some advice, work on your argument skills. Argue something that is actually true.
I didn’t say it can’t pierce, I said it can’t pierce the front of the hull, where the added armor is, at least when facing forward.
Anyway, let’s leave the topic of penetrations and focus on the issue of the chieftain and his real data, which as far as the penetration bug is concerned, we are not going to get it fixed.
Getting back to the topic, I think that the Chieftain suffers the same thing as many tanks, which is the lack of longer maps to fight at long distances and above all the compression of the Br, which makes many tanks face others that have better technology such as laser rangefinders and thermal imaging.
1 Like
So are you proposing a historical match makes where a tank at least faces something it was made to be on par with rather than something yet to be invented?
For my part yes, historically the main enemy of the Chieftain MkIII would be the T-62, and to a lesser extent the T-64A, with the Chieftain MkV using the L15A5 facing the previous ones added to if it were in the game, the T-72 Ural.
Funny note, in the reports section there have been several reports about giving the Chieftain MkV the laser telemeter, since it seems that it has historically used it. There is one accepted report and one discarded, in the discarded one the moderator justifies saying that the Chieftain that had the laser telemeter was the Chieftain Mk5/2, while in the game there was only the Chieftain Mk5. Let’s hope that the accepted one is implemented.
2 Likes
The Chieftains all have incorrect engines, armour, and technology
They would be strong in their Br. if they are fixed its that easy lol.
1 Like
I don’t doubt that, because there are many tanks that have the same problem, they don’t have the correct engines, the gear ratio is a disaster, they don’t have the right type of bullets, etc.
Regarding the Chieftain’s armor, if it is modified to have the armor it really has, that would be wonderful, but we must also take into account that the thin armor on the front will continue to exist, since it is a matter of doctrine. The Chieftain was designed as a sniper, being static in a covered position and firing at very long distances thanks to its precise gun and its modern fire calculator.
2 Likes
Man claimed he shot the T55A at this angle roughly
over eight times and it didnt die.
ive said multiple times about taking it back on topic as well.
100 percent agree, that L15A5 was capable of going through the T64 UFP at over 2000 meters, (T64A could outrange the Chieftain at over 2400 meters I believe) As per the tank museums tank chats.
The L15A5 being a carbon copy of the A3 is absolutely disgusting.
As well as this as you stated here
in the discarded one the moderator justifies saying that the Chieftain that had the laser telemeter was the Chieftain Mk5/2, while in the game there was only the Chieftain Mk5
The mods dont really have a clue, think it was @Jarms That had the data on it, but the MK5 rolled out the factory with the LRF after the first month I believe, I may be getting mixed up hence why I pinged him.
They historically had fantastic suspension as well allowing them cross country performance on par with leopard , again as per the tank chat from tank museum, im still waiting on my book coming.
Its hardly thin seeing as basically nothing of the time, bar the 125 could reliably go through the front at ranges. Realistically none of these tanks should be at 400 meters blasting at one another.
(Do agree its hull was still weak compared to the turret though and to soviet counter part hulls on T64 and 72)
Wish they would give the mk5 its LRF, engines and armour, and an proper ammunition it could definitely see 9.0
The Chieftain’s trump card would be its superior long-range accuracy thanks to its gun and fire calculator combined with its coincidence rangefinder, which would make it more accurate than the T-64A, added to its defensive combat doctrine, in statutory positions, nullifying the weak point of the chassis. We would also have to look at what ammunition the T-64A used at the same time as the Chieftain MkIII, since I seem to remember that the first APDS-FS for the 125mm gun left a lot to be desired.
This is very typical of gaijin, not researching the different ammunition and sticking to their poor penetration calculator. The simple fact that the L15A5 is uranium already makes it gain around 20mm of penetration at any angle, added to better internal damage.
Another example of ammunition errors would be the 100mm 3BM25, which apparently has been confused with the 3BM20. The 3BM20 was developed as a replacement for the 3BM8, using less tungsten and achieving slightly better penetration, while the 3BM25 was similar on the outside to the 3BM20 but with a larger and heavier tungsten core, and also a higher muzzle velocity.
1 Like
This is also typical of gaijin, giving some tanks unlockable modifications that literally transform them into another version, like the BMP1 and 2, while refusing to do the same with other tanks. This is quite curious with the British, since both the Centurion and the Chieftain were receiving small modifications over time like the Chieftain Mk 3, the Mk3/2, the Mk5 and 5/2, which were literally the same tank, with small improvements like a better engine, a laser rangefinder, a better fire calculator, better ammunition layout, more autonomy, etc.
2 Likes