The chances are still low. Your guess is as good as mine.
2 Likes
Very easy to tell its not 2A5+ by different sights placements aka original style.
The pen isn’t exactly amazing for 200 rpm in “high” fire rate though. Us trials puts it on par if not a little worse than the /01 40mm Bofors APFSDS on the 9040C. I’d much rather it came with an ATGM. Like with the LMUK turrets with Javs for example. Was a trial in 2000 though, so maybe the APFSDS has been improved
taking in count its a CTA cannon it’s pretty powerful since CTA’s sacrifice some of their propellant for tinier breach systems and shell storage
How much pens does the 40mm Bofors has ? Using the L-O formula, the CTA 40 would have either 170ish or 194mm of pen depending if Gaijin implements the lengthened rod mentioned by the US or the shorter older rod used in the initial CTA40 tests
Fairly low chance. Tuesdays and Fridays are the two main days for a first devblog but Mon-Fri are all possible.
I feel like a weatherman.
1 Like
Eh, From the US trials it’s got a MV of about 1640 m/s, but about half the penitrator weight. so less pen is to be expected. (bofors is about 500g, US tests list 250g for the CTA)
so yeah I assume the british ifvs are gonna go something like, Warrior milan, Desert Warrior, Ajax and then Boxer CTA40 with Javelins as our top IFV and then they could add the CTA40 Warrior either between the Warrior milan and Desert Warrior or add it as a premium or event tank
@vizender The US trials AblativeKitten is referring to are the same ones brought up in the EBRC Jaguar suggestion.
@AblativeKitten CTA 40 is much better than the Bofors:
Also, the penetrator length increased by up to ~36mm:
That would be referring to projectile weight and not penetrator weight. 500g is much too extreme.
1 Like
By 2030?
na probably 2050 if I had to guess
interesting but the CV90s in game pen more then 135mm at 0m right? so I assume the CTA40 will pen even more then the Bofors 40mm
Perhaps you were unaware, but there are in fact 8 Community Mangers on the international side. Not just me: Who is who and Reporting Procedure
For clarity, the South African Gripen was nothing to do with a lack of / miscommunication in feedback. It was more than clear for some time that South Africa was part of the British tree and the Gripen C was the most logical and fitting aircraft for the British tree to serve as the current top tier fighter balancing out well with many others. The Gripen C was a solution chosen by the developers that most suited and fulfilled the needs and requirements at the time taking into account all available options and making use of the sub tree nation already present in the British tree.
11 Likes
Usually rare to have things (specially starting a dovbleg season) on a Monday.
Usually its start Friday to make us wait all the WE
Comments on anything BeNeLux?
It is more desirable to have unique additions that serves some purposes than a copy paste addition that serves and fits all purposes. Top tier is now going to become stale with F-16/Gripen vs F-16/Gripen matchmakers and top tier ground is now going to be Leopard 2s vs Leopard 2s. Where is the fun in that? Is variety/uniqueness no longer a goal?
Gripen Cs are now added to Italy, UK, and soon Sweden. I wouldn’t put it past Gaijin for them to add Thai Gripen C into Japan in the future further exacerbating the current issue.
It seems like the “logical and fitting solution” is now whatever solution is cheapest and easiest rather than unique. When will Gaijin place more value and priority on uniqueness and variety?
7 Likes
Man, I don’t know how the devs got 135mm @ 0m nor do I really trust it. A lot of the medium calibre shells seem to have pretty cooked penetration values which stems from L-O being accurate and/or wrong dimensions being ran through L-O. As an example, Rosoboronexport states that 3UBR8 penetrates 50mm @ 1500m against a vertical target, yet in-game it’s 72mm…
Based on US trials (prototype penetrator) the CTA 40 would pen 166mm @ 0m when IRL it’s actually 175mm. Devs would have to ultimately decide the dimensions of the production CTA 40 as there’s no concrete data.
Unsurprisingly many nations in reality often buy the best / most suitable airframe or tank for their needs and requirements. This means that many nations operate the same types of aircraft or tank as other nations. This is not a new factor and has been in the game since its inception and mirrors the real life development of many armed forces and the vehicles they use.
Unfortunately there is not always a solely domestic or unique option at every turn and in every time period. Right now, we are in a period where Britain did not produce a light multirole fighter (Like the F-16, Mirage, Gripen) but chose to remain with the Phantom, Tornado and other airframes until the arrival of much later aircraft or other modifications with ARH.
Where its possible to do so, there will always be domestic counterparts across all trees. But this does not prevent the introduction of other reliant vehicles (such as those from sub tree nations) to better balance and support lineups in the meantime.
Its for this reason, the Gripen C was an entirely logical addition to the British tree and welcomed by many. Naturally other domestic aircraft for Britain are on the way in the future.
17 Likes
doesnt help that specialy in Air, there is only 2 major nations left with development of multiple specialised aircraft at the same time USA and Russia. While besides that there is only many different types of smaller stuff eurocanards and chinese stuff slowly getting bigger. For Air at the very least there just isnt much variety left anymore. With future stuff being multi national projects mostly as well
For ground it looks a bit better because there is many different flavours, mbts, ifvs, afvs, spaas, tank destroyers etc
So since the cat is out of the bag with our reliable leaker (got 3 update right in a row)
@Smin1080p what are the chances for a devblog next week, as you said soon not to long ago.
2 Likes