I just remembered- this chart was made using DM53’s penetrator length, so what could be considered to be a sensible value.
Based on photographs, the maker felt like SHARD couldn’t possibly be 20cm longer than DM53.
Is it possible that it’s actually 15cm longer than DM53? Maybe.
Is it also entirely possible that it’s just as long ad DM53? Yes, maybe.
Now put yourself in Gaijin’s shoes; what would they do, based on previous experiences? Go for the “safe” and lower option, or go for the more generiously optimistic higher option?
You might got sth wrong from my point.
But i basicaly said its not even proven if it can penetrate 640mm. That was my point.
There just is no data.
They might as well give leclercs dm53, they are throwing it everywhere either way , with strv122s already having them, same with arietes
When Gaijin doesn’t have proof of anything, they just roll with the closest estimates possible.
Regarding DM53, I really hope not… giving it to the Strv 122s was a balance and historical mistake and giving it to the Leclercs would be a historical mistake too; I would rather have them deem SHARD to be a DM53 equivalent and implement it like that so that at least some sense of firepower identity is retained…
Otherwise, all of NATO except the U.S and CR2s will end up using DM53 lol.
I also think the Arietes could and should have DM53 removed as well. It was an emergency measure from back when they were Top BR; but now they are a full BR below Top. They could go back to their historical ammo choices.
idc what the pen of SHARD is, i’ll take anything over the sadness and disappointment of a dart that is ofl120 f1, its the worst most pathetic dart i’ve ever used, i’d take M833 over it… Please gaijoob make leclercs actually playable again and i might play this game.
They are probably coming next update. I think a gaijin employee just accidentally pushed the change to live when they were trying to test it internally lol.
On paper they would, how they are implemented depends on Gaijin but that’s on them and not a lack of options.
I don’t have too much hope for the mobility considering that would need new mechanics to allow for things like regenerative steering and more complex transmission modelling than what we have now. That said I still have slightly more hope than for the armor that I didn’t even bother mentioning just because all we know is that it’s wrong, but we lack the proper sources to know what exactly would be right.
If they really want to have it keep up with new tanks the reload is probably how they will do it, considering reload is known to be a balance factor anyways (can’t be faster than reality, but is often slower for balance like it is here). The Type 10 can shave off nearly half of the current reload time under the right conditions (~2.2s for follow up shot with round cycled before firing), and still almost a quarter sustained (3.2s fastest known sustained reload).
There’s also an upgrade in the works with 30mm RWS and APS, so when the reload stops being enough that might already exist.
It’s not a trialed off-the-shelf product, it’s a unique variant made exclusively for Norway. Sure it wasn’t adopted, but that just makes it a failed prototype like so many others.
Not really; Type 10’s mobility is broken WITHIN CURRENT mobility standards. Youtubers, dataminers and even myself have been able to fix it by simply changing two values from its code.
Regenerative steering is a whole different matter.
Heyy @Smin1080p_WT
Is there any news on testing regenerative steering?
Asking this cause it has been close to a year since the first implementation of it was found in the game as the EldE 98.
Or when it was mentioned that it may get tested did the devs mean internally?
