I don’t often flag posts but you’re really derailing this by going off on a political rant.
People are trying to discuss a tech tree in a video game, let’s just stick with that, shall we?
3 Likes
what document is this from btw?
Playing UK makes fun
1 Like
The ministry of defence, if you feel that strongly you could write them a letter…
SR(L) 4026 is the requirement for the UK’s Chieftain replacement programme it is not a specification for CR2. It just gives the lower bound of what CR2 could be.
It’s also unknown how relevant the SR(L) 4026 figures that have been released even are. I recently came across an MOD report from later on in development which states that an unspecified change in the armour requirement was set to increase the development cost by £6 million:
5 Likes
Germany has nothing to do with the Hunter F.58. They were made in the UK and shipped FROM the UK. If we are following your logic then the Hunter F.58 needs to be taken out of the German tree and put into the UK tree. Which I agree with. We can’t have gaijin randomely changing up how they implement vehicles.
4 Likes
Hang on a minute…
Provide some more context to that, because I suspect you’re pulling an out of context, pre CR2 document to suit your own ends.
Assuming it’s pre-CR2 production, which i suspect it is,
4026 presumably refers to SR(L) 4026, which is the minimum requirements (which means nothing for your argument, that doesn’t prove it’s overperforming at all)
Gulf presumably refers to the First Gulf War, since it isn’t specifying which one, to which that can only be referring to CR1.
(Thanks Flame, just realised you got this one before me, and probably a bit more accurately too haha)
No, it isn’t. The Castlemartin accident report specifies that the “ready rack charge bins” can stow at least 8 “large” charges, a “large” charge being used for an APFSDS round. So the ready rack should be 8 rounds in game.
And no, the ammo rack placement in game makes no difference, was blatantly wrong, as there was no physical space to stow it next to the driver.
Stop being personally biased (what you’ve been saying aside from the Challenger displays this in no uncertain terms. I mean come on, no one in all sane history rejoiced when Her Majesty died.) and picking and choosing evidence to suit your own ends.
3 Likes
Challenger 2 is the result of the Chieftian Replacement Programme, so by extension, SR(L)4026 are a set of requirements it has to fulfill to even be considered. Lower bound or not.
It’s also unknown how relevant the SR(L) 4026 figures that have been released even are.
As it stands, significantly more relevant than the current Challenger 2s armor estimates which Gaijin has sucked out of their fingers during their mid-day nap (do answer this seriously - have you ever come across anything that would actually corroborate the armor levels Challenger 2 has in WT? Because I have not.)
Y’all can argue until satisfaction that SR(L) may or may not be fully representative of how the Challenger 2s armor ended up performing, but as of this point in time, it is the only public source on the armor levels that Challenger 2 had to meet, and is the only relevant one here.
I recently came across an MOD report from later on in development which states that an unspecified change in the armour requirement was set to increase the development cost by £6 million
More likely than not, it refers to the “stretch” (but it may not, too little info here).
Yes, it can store 8 HESH rounds. Or 4 APFSDS + 4 HESH rounds. But it cannot store more than 4 APFSDS rounds in the ready rack. It was a known drawback highlighted in the Hellenic trials. Do you guys even have a photo of the ready rack storing more than 4 APFSDS rounds at a time?
Sigh, as I’ve pointed out time and time again SR(L) 4026 is a requirement, not a specification. Leopard 2 Improved, and M1A2 (with DU) were part of the SR(L) 4026 competition alongside CR2, but I don’t see anyone claiming the SR(L) 4026 numbers apply to those. Also see my last comment: unspecified changes were made to the SR(L) 4026 armour requirement later on in development (after the document with those figures was written) so they’re possibly not even relevant anyway.
And regardless of anything in SR(L) 4026 the mantlet is almost certainly underperforming.
One of the requirements in SR(L) 4026 was a minimum ready rack size of 20 rounds, and documents state that Challenger 2 met all aspects of SR(L) 4026 so therefore must have had a ready rack size of at least 20 rounds.
Yes, sadly so, because Gaijin use the L-O formula, which while a good approximation is not truly reflective of real life. For example it assumes the only difference between L26 and L27A1 is the dimensions of the penetrator. In reality L27A1 used an improved DU alloy which went through a new heat treating process, the L-O formula has no way of reflecting that. For a rough guide on the performance uplift that would give: Royal Ordnance claimed that an L26 round made out of the new alloy (with all other aspects unchanged) would have approximately 20 - 30 mm more penetration than the standard L26 round.
4 Likes
Because that’s dumb. We’ve the Swedish Trials which are not only newer, they’ve significantly more up-to-date data and are more detailed when it comes to protection arcs, especially for the Leopard 2, seeing as the British have only got access to a RARDE estimate from 1988, and Germany’s requirements which obviously, per the 1993/4 trials, have been more than fulfilled. SR(L)4026 is the closest we have ever been to having definitive proof on Challenger 2s armor levels which doesn’t rely on making excessive assumptions.
the L-O formula has no way of reflecting that
You have uncovered the truth behind the universe, fyi. There’s a number of rounds of L-O cannot accurately estimate due to their construction, alloy characteristics, and heck, it actually downplays the performance if you include the tip.
Because there is data from the Swedish trials. The best data for the CR2’s armour is SR(L) 4026 unless there is more recent data that shows definitive proof of the armour improving then SRL(L) should be used.
Is there even a photo of this 20 round ready rack, though? The French POV for the Greek trials states that one of the criticisms of the 2E was its small ready rack:
And also this for what it’s worth:
That’s exactly my point. We know from other sources that the armour on the Leopard 2 Improved and M1A2 did not perfectly match the minimum protection requirements listed in SR(L) 4026, and was actually notably better than the requirement.
We have therefore established that the minimum requirement listed in SR(L) 4026 bares no relevance to the actual armour of the tanks competing in the competition beyond indicating that the armour is at least that good.
So why do you therefore deem it reasonable to conclude that Challenger 2 must be the only one of the three with armour that perfectly matches the minimum requirement and nothing more?
4 Likes
Right, but what relevance does the performance of the Leopard 2 KVT/IVT and M1A1 Block II bares on how the Challenger 2 has fulfilled the requirement and whether it has exceeded it and to what degree?
We have therefore established that the minimum requirement listed in SR(L) 4026 bares no relevance to the actual armour of the tanks competing in the competition beyond indicating that the armour is at least that good.
All we have established here is that tanks that did not enter service with the UK Army, and had been a subject to a different set of requirements than the Challenger 2 in the end, ended up exceeding the base requirement set for the Chieftian Replacement, nothing more.
So why do you therefore deem it reasonable to conclude that Challenger 2 must be the only one of the three with armour that perfectly matches the minimum requirement and nothing more?
I hate to say this, but you’re straight up grasping at straws here. I never said it has to match the base requirement (at least today), I have in fact stated that the armor change, that you had mentioned, might be the development of the stretch armor (i.e 600mm RHAe KE, making it a match for the M1A2 turret wise).
I have also said that SR(L)4026 and everything that is attached to it are the only relevant sources on the Challenger 2 up to date, this includes base & stretch requirements.
1 Like
The T-84’s engine lineage was quite literally known as one of the most unreliable diesels in the world… Even the condor itself has a fraction of the 6TD-1 and 6TD-2’s incidence rate, while even the 6TD-3’s proposed implementations would have led to what would be considered “on-par”.
But all you do is repeatedly point at SR(L) 4026 and “say Challenger 2 is over-performing it should be nerfed”. You do not say what it should be nerfed to so the implication is that it should be nerfed to one of the two levels specified in SR(L) 4026, and not have armour any better than that specified in the requirement (stretch or normal).
I’m fairly sure you added that in an edit to your original comment? I definitely don’t remember seeing that bit when I first read it. Anyway I agree that it is possible the change in protection requirement was the implementation of stretch armour. But equally when they decided on what the stretch armour requirement should be (the values were left blank when SR(L) 4026 was first drafted in 1987 and included in the 1988 revision) they explicitly stated that the stretch armour requirement could be subject to future increases, so it is possible that the cost increase was the stretch armour requirement being increased beyond 600 KE / 900 CE.
Note that the 1988 addition of stretch armour values to the requirement is not what the £6m increase is about, because the report is talking about cost increases after Challenger 2 was selected as the winner of the competition (which happened in June 1991).
Because it is? I’ve already asked you once if you’ve ever seen a source that conforms with Gaijin’s estimates (because they are just that, estimates).
You do not say what it should be nerfed to so the implication is that it should be nerfed to one of the two levels specified in SR(L) 4026, and not have armour any better than that specified in the requirement (stretch or normal).
I do not care whether it gets nerfed or not in the end and to what level of protection (that is in the end up to Gaijin), my point here has been (this entire time) that the vehicle is overperforming in terms of protection and unless new information come to light that the turret was able to achieve ~700mm RHAe KE within a 60 degree arc (but you cannot possibly believe that they’ve achieved this sort of protection when even the “stretch” was only rated up to 600mm KE RHAe/40 degree arc, and that was deemed to already be stretching the technology to its utmost limit, sure, they could’ve upped the limit somewhat, but not to such a level, and definitely not without using some sort of an add-on), it should be nerfed and lowered in BR to reflect its newfound capabilities
I’m fairly sure you added that in an edit to your original comment?
No, what I edited in is below that.
Honestly yeah just give them the Aussiebrams. It fits in Britain better, especially if they also add more Australian vehicles like the F/A-18A, the F-111C which was added last update, or just Australian skins on stuff like the Spitfires and Meteors and whatever else they operated. Being a Colony they actually operated a lot of the same equipment, would you believe that?
Also America doesn’t need another Abrams like who cares.
For reference, I have all of the TT Abrams. We don’t need an Aussie one, what we do need is the M1A1HA and the M1A1 AIM (USMC). Those would actually be notionally related besides just “country of origin” because they literally were used by the US. The Aussie one can go, and IMO should have gone, to the Brits they’re literally starving for something that at least has the illusion of being good
2 Likes
??? how… the ausie abrams is just a m1a2? it would also be way better because of KEWa2. Dont forget gen 2 thermals on top of that. So not only would they get a better m1a2, Another TT would have an abrams. Why even have america in game if everyone gets the vehicles??