They copy and pasted the armour type, but dorchester has a “generic armour quality” which ranges. I believe the highest is 0.4 (UFP) and lowest is 0.1 (addon blocks) which is weaker than aluminium. As to how one type of armour can be weaker or stronger at random places is beyond confusing.
1 Like
when you say “generic armour quality” does that mean dorchester is treated as RHA or aluminium?
or am i being stupid haha
“Generic armour quality” is basically a value that is multiplied by the LoS thickness to provide the protection against KE. “Cumulative armour quality” is for CE. In other words, the 150mm thick blocks on the side of the Challenger 2F provide 15mm against KE and have an arbitrary limit at 30mm.
Aluminium has it set to 0.2
makes sense.
so what sort of strength/capability should we presumably/probably have?
Well for one you have to remember all this protection on the standard, unmodified challenger 2 is meant to provide protection from 3BM46 in the frontal arc. Then note that the armour package on the TES should be stopping RPG-29s (650 post ERA). This is of course just a series of assumptions from what it was designed against but it shows how gaijin is willing to make up a placeholder and then ignore anything anyone says otherwise - even if what they have done is against all basic reason.
1 Like
Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion This thread has been dicussing it a lot recently. For the TES at least its about 1/4 the strength it should be I think
Does anybody here know anything about the quite big nerf to the explosive mass of the Tornados APHE? On the dev it now only has 8g of explosive mass
yeah well i know off the top of my head that challenger armour arrays shouldve been able to survive impact from rounds current in 1994. so that sounds about right.
explosive mass got decreased, but the penetration gets increased , so depends might be an actual bugg since it gets less effected by realshatter
Has anyone actually reported that? IIRC it was pretty close to the manual after it got it’s FM overhaul a few months after being added.
could you send me more info on that lightning one? ive never heard that before
The APHE round is designated DM13 in real life (not to be confused with the DM13 APFSDS round). I can’t find the specs for it though, maybe someone else can?
6.1g seems to check out
1 Like
The official ceiling of the Lightning was kept secret. Low security RAF documents often stated “in excess of 60,000 ft (18,000 m)”.
If you can demonstrate the lightning being able to effectively fly at those kinds of altitudes (the in-game “flight ceiling” is 52480… unless I forgot year 1 maths i’m pretty sure that 52 is still less than 60)
The Lightning’s optimum climb profile required the use of afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 knots (800 km/h; 490 mph) IAS before initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 knots (830 km/h; 520 mph). This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s). Around 13,000 ft (4,000 m) the Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 (1,009 km/h; 627 mph) and maintain this speed until reaching the tropopause, 36,000 ft (11,000 m) on a standard day. If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb. A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft (11,000 m) in under three minutes.
Or replicate this climb. (I should note that it states the CONSTANT climb rate is 20000ft/min. The aircraft actually had an initial rate exceeding 50000ft/min, compared to the MiG-21 which had ~36000)
Don’t forget that the in-game lightning can’t even reach mach 2 within the map, even though one aircraft exceeded mach 2.3 on occasion before sustaining damage.
1 Like
According to the Lightning Operating Data Manual acceleration from Mach 1 to Mach 2 took 90 nautical miles. So that is accurate.
Isnt the lightning suppose to be able to hit Mach 1 in a vertical climb? or is that just one of those myths? Because in game you cant
I don’t believe it could actually do that, but the climb performance is much better than the game appears to demonstrate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC8CsVpg64o here you can see an unrestricted climb to 9km in 102 seconds.
Just tested following the exact flight profile of the video in tandem. It appears to behave very similarly until I begin the climb (on minimum fuel!!!) at which point in the video the aircraft is accelerating, and I am decelerating in game.
In other words - the time to altitude is the same or remarkably similar, but what it appears to be is the in-game lightning accelerates faster down low, before struggling in the climb.
With further testing, I can exceed mach 2 (barely!!) at ~52000 (the in game “flight ceiling”) but cannot sustain my speed “in excess of 60000” as all publications stated.
3 Likes
Here is a photo of the Lightning during that record setting climb. You may notice the lack of a whopping big fuel tank under the fuselage:
2 Likes
And yet it carried fuel for 10 minutes of flight, which is above the six I am carrying. The presence of the fuel tank isn’t particularly relevant if it’s not loaded with that fuel.
Ever heard of drag?
7 Likes