ground vehicles The Challenger 1

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

3 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

BVV_d confirmed an ''early M1'' and ''T-72 Variants'' to be implemented soon, my guess would be on one of the XM1 prototypes and the T-72A,

 

XM1? We don’t know what the composite array even looks like nor it’s true thickness and performance against certain shells. It’s slightly different with the T-64A and XYZ-70 we have right now as there are documents showing what the array looks like, but this is literally classified, “you have no clue what you’re doing” levels of impossible (and against Gaijin’s policy of adding tanks without sufficient sources and information). This would be a horrible long term move if they’re actually thinking about adding any M1 Abrams or prototypes there of. 

[Nope 10,634]

9 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

XM1? We don’t know what the composite array even looks like nor it’s true thickness and performance against certain shells. It’s slightly different with the T-64A and XYZ-70 we have right now as there are documents showing what the array looks like, but this is literally classified, “you have no clue what you’re doing” levels of impossible (and against Gaijin’s policy of adding tanks without sufficient sources and information). This would be a horrible long term move if they’re actually thinking about adding any M1 Abrams or prototypes there of. 

 

also blowout panels

 

and automatic extinguishers on as standard

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

13 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

also blowout panels

 

 

I can just hear the response: 

 

"We wont model that in game as that would give it too much an edge over it's opponents, comrade. xaxaxaxaxa" 

 

15 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

and automatic extinguishers on as standard

 

"No no, comrade, must buy MANUAL extinguishers, for game balance. xaxaxaxa" 

[Nope 10,634]

16 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

I can just hear the response: 

 

"We wont model that in game as that would give it too much an edge over it's opponents, comrade. xaxaxaxaxa" 

 

 

"No no, comrade, must buy MANUAL extinguishers, for game balance. xaxaxaxa" 

 

i also forgot fuel tanks with a system that sucks out gasoline fumes and fills the vacuum with inert gases

[Necrons31467 14,236]

17 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

I can just hear the response: 

 

"We wont model that in game as that would give it too much an edge over it's opponents, comrade. xaxaxaxaxa" 

 

 

"No no, comrade, must buy MANUAL extinguishers, for game balance. xaxaxaxa" 

 

Well, Ivan forgets to bring his Smoke Dischargers into battle, so we gotta research that stuff just so that Ivan remembers )))))

[Koty1996 457]

Challenger is love, Challenger is live.

 

However, what mark of it?
mk.1? mk.2? mk.3?
Plain or with ERA?

 

Reserve the 9.7 for Chieftain mk.11
10.0 is too low

10.3 or you're going to see the world explode.

 

Also - your "modern" MBT's include T-80? T-80B at least, thank you. If not T-80U.

 

Also, M1's is not that classified. There are leaked documents out there and we have quite clear picture of how the array looks.

 

Also, blowout pannels just give the crew a chance to escape. The tank loses most of its ammunition, in the case of M1. What I would rather want to see is HESH and APDS warheads that actually do not explode when impacted. They're inert ;-;

 

 

EDIT: Also, talked with a CR1 vet. The shot was not at 4.6 km but over 5 km. Some smart person seems to have had the neat idea of take the original meassurement in meters from the LRF, act like it is yards and redundantly convert it to metric. 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Koty1996

[Laviduce 1,779]

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

12 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

 

Also, M1's is not that classified. There are leaked documents out there and we have quite clear picture of how the array looks. 

 

They weren't leaked... they were "Declassified": 

 

Spoiler

 

And if you look closely (or not so closely), you can see that there are no numbers... Nor does it say any of these diagrams are to scale or the materials used. It tells us nothing. It just says "this is what these parts look like", but the turret front is missing, and we cant assume that the turret front is the same as any of the other arrays as all the arrays are different (hull front, turret sides, mantle, etc.). 

 

There is even less about the Challenger, as there's nothing declassified about it. 

[Koty1996 457]

those pictures are actually enough to recreate the thing quite accurately

 

you do not need to know the array down to nail, you just need the angle at which the plates are and the effect it has

 

first can be derived from the picture, second can be derived from the behavior of the penetrator. That is - if the long-rod thingie likes to bite into an angled plate, then if it has several such plates along its length, that's putting a lot of bending stress on the penetrator, also squeezing it from the sides. To model that, you'd have to simplify it anyways, for the sake of performance. Making the whole array bloc as a single entity, instead of multiple layers, where, depending on penetrator's length, it would be more effective. Same for Challenger.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

35 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

those pictures are actually enough to recreate the thing quite accurately

 

you do not need to know the array down to nail, you just need the angle at which the plates are and the effect it has

 

But my statement still stands: How do we know these diagrams are to scale or are accurately representing what it looks like within the real M1? You don’t, so we still have nothing. If you can’t support your claims with evidence, you have no argument. 

[Nope 10,634]

40 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

those pictures are actually enough to recreate the thing quite accurately

 

you do not need to know the array down to nail, you just need the angle at which the plates are and the effect it has

 

first can be derived from the picture, second can be derived from the behavior of the penetrator. That is - if the long-rod thingie likes to bite into an angled plate, then if it has several such plates along its length, that's putting a lot of bending stress on the penetrator, also squeezing it from the sides. To model that, you'd have to simplify it anyways, for the sake of performance. Making the whole array bloc as a single entity, instead of multiple layers, where, depending on penetrator's length, it would be more effective. Same for Challenger.

 

yeah lets forget how no one knows what is exactly in the array itself

[Koty1996 457]

let's invalidate any kind of clue we have just because anything can be doubted
what's next
earth is flat


jk
merry christmass

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

1 hour ago, Koty1996 said:

let's invalidate any kind of clue we have just because anything can be doubted

Well the evidence does have some pretty big holes in it in need of answers.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

5 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

let's invalidate any kind of clue we have just because anything can be doubted

 

That’s like saying you know exactly who I am just because I say I’m a ginger male (which I am). That diagram isn’t enough to model anything, you need proof that it’s right. Is the diagram to scale compared to the IRL tank? Are the layers represented of correct size? What are the materials? How thick are the layers? All these and more need to be answered if you even want to start modeling the M1 in game. 

 

5 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

jk
merry christmass

 

I thought Christ’s Mass was tomorrow  

[Ronin_GE 694]

20 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

EDIT: Also, talked with a CR1 vet. The shot was not at 4.6 km but over 5 km. Some smart person seems to have had the neat idea of take the original meassurement in meters from the LRF, act like it is yards and redundantly convert it to metric. 

 

That 5000+ shot was quiete extraordinary. The crew of this tank had to do everything perfectly for engagment. On top of that they needed a huge pile of luck. The CEP for a Sabot round at that range is significantly bigger then a tank.

 

They to a gamble there...and won.

 

But it would be foolish to assume the CR1 had an effective range of 5000m

Edited December 24, 2017 by Ronin_GE

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

I would have to say "No" for at least another year or a year and a half. Let's wait for them to introduce the Italian ground forces and flesh out tier six, then hope to whatever entity you believe exists or not, that they finally rework their game modes and maps. Cause that is the main thing that is holding the game back from being a truly outstanding product at the moment.

[Koty1996 457]

1 hour ago, Ronin_GE said:

 

That 5000+ shot was quiete extraordinary. The crew of this tank had to do everything perfectly for engagment. On top of that they needed a huge pile of luck. The CEP for a Sabot round at that range is significantly bigger then a tank.

 

They to a gamble there...and won.

 

But it would be foolish to assume the CR1 had an effective range of 5000m

Might be foolish, but hey, it's possible!

EDIT: You know what they say - if it stupid, but it works...

1 hour ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

That’s like saying you know exactly who I am just because I say I’m a ginger male (which I am). That diagram isn’t enough to model anything, you need proof that it’s right. Is the diagram to scale compared to the IRL tank? Are the layers represented of correct size? What are the materials? How thick are the layers? All these and more need to be answered if you even want to start modeling the M1 in game. 

 

 

I thought Christ’s Mass was tomorrow  

You do not need to know any of that to model it with reasonable ammount of accuracy. Also, what proof do you need? Everyone and their mother knows it's layers of armour. And that's all you need. Effectivness? You would have to know the effectivness of each of the materials anyways. But you can get that from other things, like the overall rating, estimates. Who says it has to be 100% perfect down to a nail? You will never have perfection, not with anything that has to do anything with composites. That's why you work with estimates and physics. As nope said, not everything acts the same against this kind of composite. Which means that even if I told you that each of those slabs is an inch thick made of steel and ceramics and steel again, 1/1/1 - it wouldn't tell you anything. So do not ask for "proofs and evidence" when it wouldn't help anything anyways. I understand your frustration. But please understand that that diagram is a clue. And that it isn't enough to model anything? It would tell you the base angle of the armour, that is, where this armour is least effective, being slabbed armour package which returns the glorious property of armour to grow effectivness with impact angle.

 

TL;DR - you're fighting windmills, sir.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Koty1996

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

12 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

They weren't leaked... they were "Declassified": 

 

  Hide contents

 

And if you look closely (or not so closely), you can see that there are no numbers... Nor does it say any of these diagrams are to scale or the materials used. It tells us nothing. It just says "this is what these parts look like", but the turret front is missing, and we cant assume that the turret front is the same as any of the other arrays as all the arrays are different (hull front, turret sides, mantle, etc.). 

 

There is even less about the Challenger, as there's nothing declassified about it. 

I think a better example of a good source on composite armour would be this feasibility study from 1968 on a Burlington covered Chieftain (the FV4211 eventually evolved out of the some of the ideas expressed within it)

https://tankandafvnews.com/wo-194-1323-feasibility-study-on-burlington-chieftain/

It covers a variety of topics on different topics concerning the armour (such as what the typical array looks like, expected armour increase from it, how it would effect the automotive performance, etc.). Even then its not perfect, such as when it shows one of the arrays it states certain plates as "plastic", without explaining what exact plastic it uses. We also don't know if the arrays shown were the ones applied to later vehicles like the FV4211, or if different style arrays were used.

 

 

Also, it refers to the armour packages as biscuits, which I thought was funny.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Mercedes4321

[Nope 10,634]

13 hours ago, Ronin_GE said:

 

That 5000+ shot was quiete extraordinary. The crew of this tank had to do everything perfectly for engagment. On top of that they needed a huge pile of luck. The CEP for a Sabot round at that range is significantly bigger then a tank.

 

They to a gamble there...and won.

 

But it would be foolish to assume the CR1 had an effective range of 5000m

 

And from what I've heard from ARRSE, the gunner also had to use the backup sights since he did not trust the FCS at that range. The best part is that he's not that proud of the shot compared to this 3 km or so HESH kill he got on a moving T-62. Knowing how bad the ballistics of HESH shells are in comparison, that's even more impressive. Someone must have given him extra rations for that shot (what is considered the best food item in a british mre of that time).

 

12 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

Might be foolish, but hey, it's possible!

EDIT: You know what they say - if it stupid, but it works...

You do not need to know any of that to model it with reasonable ammount of accuracy. Also, what proof do you need? Everyone and their mother knows it's layers of armour. And that's all you need. Effectivness? You would have to know the effectivness of each of the materials anyways. But you can get that from other things, like the overall rating, estimates. Who says it has to be 100% perfect down to a nail? You will never have perfection, not with anything that has to do anything with composites. That's why you work with estimates and physics. As nope said, not everything acts the same against this kind of composite. Which means that even if I told you that each of those slabs is an inch thick made of steel and ceramics and steel again, 1/1/1 - it wouldn't tell you anything. So do not ask for "proofs and evidence" when it wouldn't help anything anyways. I understand your frustration. But please understand that that diagram is a clue. And that it isn't enough to model anything? It would tell you the base angle of the armour, that is, where this armour is least effective, being slabbed armour package which returns the glorious property of armour to grow effectivness with impact angle.

 

TL;DR - you're fighting windmills, sir.

 

The problem comes from how the ballistic coefficients of shells of that time are so amazing that even a 30mm gap could increase or decrease engagement range by hundreds of meters. Precision is absolutely crucial especially with how Gaijin models composite armor as modules and not as armor. There's also the case of not every single material acting the same as another. WWII tanks are a perfect example since they are all made of steel, but as tank nerds know, not all steel is equal. BHN is a factor, as is alloy content. The high silicon content of say, Russian steel is different from the high carbon German steel and both are different from post-war 42 SM steel used on T-54s and T-62s, and the cast CrNiMo steel found on the T-54 is also different from 42 SM. Imagine what would happen with siliceous materials too, plus factoring in the spacing and possibly bulging plates. Not to mention that the penetrator erosion will be quite peculiar as it exits the first or third or fifth layer, or which material is being tunneled through. All these combined with a smaller margin of error result in very serious balance issues.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

Ok, since it's Christmas today (for me anyway), I though it would give this thread a present, for your brains It's a quiz/test to see how much you know about these "declassified" documents and how well you understand them! @Ronin_GE, @Nope, @Mercedes4321, you probably know the answers so you're not allowed to answer, let the others guess first. 

 

Spoiler

 

1. What are the components that I circled in blue? What are they made of and what do they do for the array? 

 

2. For the turret side, what is the layer I highlighted in yellow? What is it made of? How thick is it? 

[Nope 10,634]

26 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

Ok, since it's Christmas today (for me anyway), I though it would give this thread a present, for your brains It's a quiz/test to see how much you know about these "declassified" documents and how well you understand them! @Ronin_GE, @Nope, @Mercedes4321, you probably know the answers so you're not allowed to answer, let the others guess first. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

1. What are the components that I circled in blue? What are they made of and what do they do for the array? 

 

2. For the turret side, what is the layer I highlighted in yellow? What is it made of? How thick is it? 

 

lego and swiss biscuits

[Koty1996 457]

I would say the yellow one is metal, because of the striping. Rubber or plastic materials should have crossed lines. But it's americans we're talking about - and rubber sounds the most logical to be in that spot. The blue ones are spacers. Seen them on a (bad quality, so it can be doubted, feel free to) photo of a wrecked M1 turret. On the turret they are roughly ... what, 2/3 of a meter apart?

[Koty1996 457]

9 hours ago, Nope said:

 

And from what I've heard from ARRSE, the gunner also had to use the backup sights since he did not trust the FCS at that range. The best part is that he's not that proud of the shot compared to this 3 km or so HESH kill he got on a moving T-62. Knowing how bad the ballistics of HESH shells are in comparison, that's even more impressive. Someone must have given him extra rations for that shot (what is considered the best food item in a british mre of that time).

 

 

Yep, IFCS was used for that.

 

9 hours ago, Nope said:

The problem comes from how the ballistic coefficients of shells of that time are so amazing that even a 30mm gap could increase or decrease engagement range by hundreds of meters. Precision is absolutely crucial especially with how Gaijin models composite armor as modules and not as armor. There's also the case of not every single material acting the same as another. WWII tanks are a perfect example since they are all made of steel, but as tank nerds know, not all steel is equal. BHN is a factor, as is alloy content. The high silicon content of say, Russian steel is different from the high carbon German steel and both are different from post-war 42 SM steel used on T-54s and T-62s, and the cast CrNiMo steel found on the T-54 is also different from 42 SM. Imagine what would happen with siliceous materials too, plus factoring in the spacing and possibly bulging plates. Not to mention that the penetrator erosion will be quite peculiar as it exits the first or third or fifth layer, or which material is being tunneled through. All these combined with a smaller margin of error result in very serious balance issues.

 

Yep, just what I meant. And I doubt anyone here or even in gaijin would be able to do anything, knowing what the materials are.

 

Except maybe get the normal RHAe and then compare it with the angled one to get some kind of a property that tells us effectivness increase with angle. But that's about it and it's still inaccurate AF.

 

We still haven't seen the FHA armour plates for example. Again, that's the kind of armour where projectile matters. It might not matter with the composites of the style of T-64's front plate (at least not as marcantly), but as discussed, these laminar arrays are something completely different from that. A new league, will you.

 

If we took it as levels, we would have (terminology just descriptive, not actual terms):
Homogenous armour

Spaced armour (with huge gaps) and non-spaced laminar armour (sandwich)

FHA

laminar spaced arrays, NERA kind of stuff

 

 

feel free to disagree and leave some other points to conscider tho, guys.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

36 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

I would say the yellow one is metal, because of the striping. Rubber or plastic materials should have crossed lines. But it's americans we're talking about - and rubber sounds the most logical to be in that spot. The blue ones are spacers. Seen them on a (bad quality, so it can be doubted, feel free to) photo of a wrecked M1 turret. On the turret they are roughly ... what, 2/3 of a meter apart?

 

I’m surprised you got the blue, I usually see a lot of people stumped when I tell them it doesn’t actually contribute to the armor. And no, the spacing is much less as the physical thickness of the hull front is ~700mm and the turret sides are ~350mm. I would assume the turret spacer is no larger than 150mm, which would leave a decent amount of space for the NERA and the rear sandwich. 

 

Speaking of the sandwich, it’s most probably metal, maybe a high hardness steel as DU wasn’t used in the Abrams at that time. But yes, we have absolutely no idea. 

[Koty1996 457]

I did not mean the width of the spacer itself, more like, how many you can fit on one side of the turret, for example.

 

But while we have no idea, we can get close enough.

And that's it. There will always be someone bitching about "it just does not feel right", unless we model it inch by inch. Which is literally impossible and requires using effectivness estimate anyways. As the NERA array is just a one big variable.

 

But personally I would say getting a working M1 should take priority over the Chally. I mean, you can just slap the Chieftain mk.11 with L26 in there if you want a temporary-meassure tank.

 

heh, got the yellow bugger
it's a spacer as well, nothing else would really make sense ))

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Koty1996