I guess my information about it was wrong then. Good to know, thanks!
There is so little on the thing tbf, so its understandable. Had to dig sround the ZA history side of the community to get something for it. HighPingHero and Prof Venters have been extremely helpful.
It shouldn’t though as far as I’m aware. It predates the Mk 2 upgrade that achieved 1050hp, it was using a bog standard 1B hull and as such should be 850hp.
M9718 would be nice on all modern ZA 105s though. As far as I’m aware it should have M900-ish levels of penetration.
1 Like
As it was co-developed alongside the Mk.2 (And the Mk.1B and Mk.2 use the exact same powerpack) its not out the realm of possibility it was uprated to match the Mk.2. The little info I have leans towards this aswell.
And once again cause im cursed to xbox i cant pre order
new pre order jas39-5 `s bol have some problem, the rb99 missile cannot use with bol, need repair
When the update drops, Xbox players (Like you and I) have a 2-3 week window to buy the packs with pre-order perks. I got the Iron Duke on update day and received all the bonuses via Microsoft store.
1 Like
Regarding M9718, it has 450mm of pen at 2km @60° LOS. Bringing that to 0m distance, that is ~510mm of penetration in game, M900A1 in game pens 520mm at 0m.
1 Like
Viper has been working with Prof Venter on information about optimering. I think I’m more pikeito believe the south African vehicle consultant for WT over anyone else unless we have our own sources directly NGL.
Oh nice thx
Yeah its not known very well and I spread awareness where I can.
This is a stretch, it predates the Mk 2 project by several years. The Optimum was a mid-late 1990s project, while the first Mk 2s were built in 2004-5.
Like you said, the information is scarce, but the highest given figure I have seen for the 1B engine is the potential for it to be uprated to 1020hp, but not that this actually happened.
Everything I have seen regarding the Optimum project points to it purely being the development of a new combat turret that was simply put on the most readily available hull, which at the time was the 1B. Although I’m surprised they didn’t put it on the TTD hull.
The optimering should be tech tree. Britain has no TT 10.0 vehicles besides Stormer.
3 Likes
Seb mate are we forgetting how long military procurement can take? And the situation south Africa was in post apartheid?
It was meant to be a new turret with tweaks to the rest of the tank.
Just as challenger 3 isn’t leaving the challenger 1 hulls 1:1 identical
Because that tank testbed was ass old by then. This is in many a way a more realistic successor for SA
1 Like
If only the olifant had an actual lineup to go with it
Honestly the Rooikat 105 and Stormer AD isn’t a terrible one. And the 9.7 tanks can be taken higher with little punishment
It maybe a stretch on the surface level, but I have spoken to a Major who ran the Optimering programme, Dr Dewalt Venters and HighPingHero and all have said it was co-developed alongside the Olifant Mk.2. The Mk.2 in its final form appeared in 2002, Optimering’s last known date being shown around was 2001.
As @ScimitarsCurse has said, TTD was ancient news by the time Optimering came around, plus it was purely a “Look what we can do” with help from German engineering firms like Krauss-Maffei.
3 Likes
And according to Jean Pierre Scherman, 30+ year SANDF veteran, senior officer, and doctor of military science at a South African university, the Optimum only ever ran with the 850hp Mk 1B engine.
As far as I’m aware, there is no actual evidence, other than speculation, that the Optimum ever received the 1050hp upgrade.
2 Likes
Well its an impass of sources, the 3 I have spoken to say one thing. Yours says differently, someone is incorrect either way and it’ll probably never be known becasue 90% of Optimering docs have been destroyed.
2 Likes
