IT was fielded in the Gulf War, with L28A1, A DU round.
Why is it stuck with 2 Variants of L23, a round developed for the CHIEFTAIN in the mid 70s?
Its not like it would hurt to give the thing atleast L26/L26A1, So that it is competitive Pen wise with Russian and even other NATO tanks. You give the Russian tanks modern rounds that were created well after their variants were actually built.
if the things armor is going to be made useless, atleast give it the shells so it can BITE back at the enemy’s that can Lol pen its turret, while it has to aim for weak spots as it currently is.
The title answered your question.
1970 is before 1980, the gun can fire the round.
Also, L27A1 has the same pen as 3BM60 on Soviet MBTs.
L27A1: 622mm at 2km.
3BM60: 616mm at 2km.
60 degrees.
Divide those numbers by 2 to see the statcard numbers.
I think the L23A1 is accurate for the Challenger Mk2 as it should be considered the version at the start of its service (1983) . Ahead of deployment in Operation Granby (1991) the Mk2s were upgraded with L26 shells among other improvements. (these can be read about here or here ). This version can be found in game called the Challenger DS and is the premium version of the tank. Unfortunately, it currently lacks the L26 shells that the Challenger Mk2s were equipped with for “balancing reasons” and the historically accurate shell was denied (even though voluntary BR increase to 10.3 was offered). Upon return from Desert Storm, the Challenger Mk2s were formally upgraded to the Challenger Mk3s.
The Challenger 1s are likely in need of some love in the future, they are certainly lacking in areas, though most of the British tanker community is focused on the Challenger 2s which are in an even more dire state, but I hope one day we can return our attention to the CR1s. However I suspect like the CR2, one of its most fundamental issues is a lack of certain mechanics being modeled, such as a shell perforation. Though I am unsure whether or not the L23A1 or L26 were designed to penetrate ERA (though L26 was designed to counter T-72s so I would assume so)
In this instance OP is technically right, Challenger MK2s did recieve L26s shells when they saw combat in 1991. However in game, we have that tank, its called the Challenger DS (though is is lacking that shell currently due to “balancing reasons”) and the Mk2 is the 1983 version. We can also assume like the CR2s, the CR1 would likely benefit from mechanics such as shell perforation being modeled, as one of the main tanks you face at that BR is the T-72 TURMS.
The CR1, like the CR2, is a victim of missing features and a gamemode not designed for its strengths.
That’s the thing, L26 does exist on Mk3.
That’s what makes it stand out over Mk2 and DS.
Is L23A1 eh? Sort of, but it’s the same performance as DM23 on the 10.3 Leopard 2A4 at a BR step lower.
The round is adequate for the BR of the tanks.
Honestly, the inconsistent thing is DM33, 3BM42, L26, and China’s 470mm 0 degree pen round.
10.0 - 11.0, 4 - 7.1 seconds reload, Ariete - T-72B armor levels… in a 4 step zone.
Type 90 is a gen 1 thermal Challenger 1 gunner sight, 1 second faster reload to Challenger, Leopard 2K speed demon… 3 steps higher than Challenger Mk3… firing an equivalent round.
The difference is purely the speed and 1 second faster reload…
Maybe, but the Challenger 1 Mk2s deployed in 1991 were only ever equipped with L26. The Tank literally called “Challenger Desert Storm” should ideally be equipped with the shell that it was exclusively deployed with to “Desert Storm”.
In terms of the game. For anyone purchasing the Chally DS to assist with the grind (I know i did) the L23A1 shells do feel lack luster, especially when L26s shells are entirely available for the tank. As at that BR, you are likely encountering the same tanks regardless of whether you are playing 10.0 or 10.3 as many are in Premiums like the T-72 TURMS.
with wise to the wider tree as well, you are likely running a 10.3 line up already. Likely the Challenger Mk3 as back up with its L26 shells, Stormer HVM at 10.3 for SPAA (at least when its working), Jaguar Gr1A at 10.3 for jet CAS and either the Lynx or G-Lynx at 10.3 for Heli CAS. The Challenger DS would not be in anyway harmed with a BR increase to 10.3 as you are likely running it there already.
I am not suggesting the Challenger Mk2 receive L26 though (as the Chally DS does exist), and it should remain below the Mk3 and is likely"fine" at 10.0 (though I do personally wonder whether it should in fact be 9.7). But Chally DS should recieve its correct round and move to 10.3.
Every 120x570mm gun that’s not American or German will fire SHARD in upcoming ground BRs; The French round.
Not because Japan, Italy, Israel, Sweden/Finland purchased the round, but because the reason is SHARD’s chamber pressures is below that of DM53/Type 10/M338 while pushing more performance and the NATO standard caliber was invented for that very reason so long as chamber pressures are within limits.
It’s not about what vehicles used in real-life wars. This is a program about war games, not wars.
Note that anything I do not address in your post is stuff I have no comment on; AKA nothing to add.
I am perfectly content with the content I do not address. If I do not agree with it, I am at worst indifferent or addressed it previously.
Indifference means it could be implemented and I’d go with the flow.
@_Mr_Fahrenheit
lol Soviet equipment isn’t great. I know you love Russian equipment, but you peddling that myth is pathetic.
BVM has less armor than Challenger 2, get over it.
Proposing changes isn’t strawmanning, trolling, or status quo. Nor is defending good aspects of the program. Go play Ocarina of Time & claim it needs changed.
It’s pathetic whenever people critique War Thunder, people like yourself call critics trolls.
War Thunder doesn’t need your protection. Criticizing War Thunder is not insulting the game, there is no reason for you to claim critics are trolls, as accusing us critics of such things derails topics.
We get it, you want War Thunder to be permanently unchanged.
Stop accusing all critics of being trolls just cause you’re afraid of change.
You keep editing your posts but that doesn’t make it any more convincing, everyone can see you editing this post and the previous post minutes apart to make them actually fit the narrative your pushing now that you’ve been called out.
Yes, people can see that I edited my posts.
I exclusively added things to the posts, which doesn’t change their meaning. Next time don’t misrepresent others when they have the power to provide evidence that proves you wrong.
Only thing removed was “good”, it was replaced with “great” as that’s what I meant.
Nothing was removed:
I never opposed the round change. All I came here for was to answer the question.
Morvran started a discussion and I participated, opposing nothing in regards to ammo that he brought up.
Everyone knows that I’m the largest proponent of decompression as well, tho that’s off-topic.
It’s weird watching people tell others to ignore War Thunder’s critics.
I’ll state something people should genuinely listen to:
People, ALWAYS listen to War Thunder’s critics, even when we’re wrong.
Never ignore critics, even if they’re loud. Behind their anger & stress is sincerity & concerns.
