I still think they should drop the Centurion 3 down to 7.3 and replace it with the 7/1. We already have the Mk 7/1 hull in-game, on the Action X. Could easily then copy over the Mk 3 turret.
Centurion Mk.3 would be too strong at 7.3,
Maybe if they removed the APDS it would be fine, but with it? Definetly too strong
Especially when we have other unique vehicles that can go there (can’t remember off the top of my head, but some based on the “Universal” hull like the Caernarvon + Conq, an earlier caernarvon keeping the 20pr with added downsides would fit 7.3 nicely, theres also a 17pr variant iirc too)
If it’s realistic, it’s fine. Now all that’s missing is decent maps, a realistic damage model, revised penetrations, and the correct Br for tanks.
Nah, it’s incredibly similar to the FV4202.
Yeah I kinda agree with you tbh. The only thing holidng back 20pdr is weird shatter issues that are only noticable on things with overlapping plates. IF they actually fix this stupid inconsistent mechanic Centurion Mk 3 is still good enough for 7.7 but it’s a shame there isn’t a clear place for things like Mk 5/2 or 7/1.
Even Cent Mk 10 at 8.0 isnt overly cutting edge especially when Sho’t Kal Alef sits at the same BR with better ammo (M728 and HEAT-FS), better turret front armour (because its a Mk 5 and Mk 8 - 10s mantlet armour is still dodgy) an extra machine gun and a more powerful engine (750BHP!). Mk 10 does have the better upper hull though and curiously in game both have the same mass of 51.8t.
Yes sorry I meant to say Hellfire II.
the Centurion Mk.3 is Objectively better than the FV4202
Top speed, Reverse speed, armour, Traverse speeds, armour, similar mobility, same firepower
It’s a direct downgrade, with its only redeeming factor being a Slight increase in HP/T (Centurion still feels like it accelerates better personally)
i don’t even notice “Shell Shattered” to be too much of an issue, sure it happens but when it does you have a new round through quickly, and it does fair damage, unlike the 120mm L1A2 of the Conq, where you need to wait business days to reload, and does little damage
it already is, its perfectly fine, I’d much rather take the Cent Mk.3 than the Conq, and only really the Caernarvon i’d say is outright better (better HP/T, better Hull armour, Identical turret)
Although I’ve never played it, it does not seem to be significantly inferior, it at all to the M48A1/A2C,
Never played nor really seen the Kal Alef in battles, but the Mark 10 does perfectly fine, even if it is worse, i don’t see why it should move down, though it should definitely get its mantlet fixed, and more ammunition would be welcome to deal with IS-4s and the such,
It definetly isn’t my first pick for the 8.0 Lineup for sure, Vickers Mk.1 is just better for the current state of the game, Personally much prefer the Mark 10 to the Leopard 1 at the same BR
The bigger issue IMO is the 7.7-9.3 compression
You go from 20pdr Cents with APDS at 7.7, to 105 Cents with APDS at 8.0, then (Technologically) jump to APFSDS and LRFs at 8.3?! With 120mm APDS at 8.7 with the Chieftains etc to really rub salt in the wound.
Why play the 7.7 and 8.0 Cents when you don’t get SPAAGs or many support tanks, when you could play the stacked 8.3 and 8.7 line ups,
1 Like
It’s not that much better.
- Speed: 32km on the FV4202 compared to 35km on the Mk 3. 3km difference isn’t that noticeable, the slightly better hp/t on the FV4202 cancels it out. The reverse on the Centurion is definitely better though and can get you out of sticky situations.
- Armour: That’s debatable. The FV4202 is far weaker on paper, but it’s sloped a lot better. That 51mm plate comes out to about 120mm LOS thickness compared to about 130mm LOS on the Centurion. So not a massive advantage there either. Turret armour is harder to quantify due to so many different areas but they can both be pretty trolly sometimes.
- FCS: Centurion 3 does have better traverse, but the FV4202 has a rangefinder.
They’re pretty comparable with pros and cons to both. Centurion Mk 3 is pretty much a backup vehicle in 7.7 these days anyway.
7 Likes
isnt one of the main points of the brimstone the compatibility with hellfire platforms?
It’s compatible in that it has the same physical footprint, and mechanical and electronic interfaces.
It still needs integration if you want it to fully work with e.g. the Apache’s radar and HMS. And the quote Boeing gave to the MoD for doing that kind of work was astronomical because it’s not in Boeing’s interest to do it.
2 Likes
I was looking forward to zooming in and Nuking Battleships with it. But i fear there are gonna be too many missile Destroyers around now.
Do I understand correctly that this document implies that the Starstreak should engage a fast-moving target at a minimum distance of around 800 meters, and that its maximum effective range is about 5 kilometers?
This is preservice Starstreak where the max range was only ~5km
All shots are non maneuvering head-on targets.
Isn’t it a UAI store though? So it should be basically, just what would be required for platform specific Flight Safety & Release Limitation investigations and certification.
The Software and Hardware should otherwise be “plug and play”.
Even if it is, it’s not possible for it to be done by the UK as an end user with no access to those systems or rights to modify it. So it’s not possible to do without Boeing’s engineers. And they are the ones that determine how much it will cost, regardless of if it’s a “fair” price or not.
2 Likes
Seems similar to the issue we are having with F-35. I’d be tempted to just jailbreak these systems, something we’ve done before if we aren’t going to get fair treatment.
1 Like
With how much the UK put into F-35 and currently produces through the likes of BAE Systems, it is boarding on criminal how awkward its been to get our weapons fit to F-35.
9 Likes
It’s already been confirmed that its a violation of contract and we have not been provided with the full benefits of our partnership agreement by deliberate withhold from LM and the JPO.
The treatment has indeed been completely unacceptable and honestly a real betrayal, by LM (who got access to BAE IP for F-22 and F-35), by the US Government (who through successive admins have failed to rectify the situation) and by the JPO (who our contract is with and should be the ones seeing to our fair treatement).
Even worse, some vague not even 3rd tier partner but an observer has been given priority for domestic integration, deliveries, has its own variant of the system and was allowed to make extensive airframe and software modifications so it would suit its own requirements and yet the UK has had 3 senior officials state on the record the F-35B as an airframe doesn’t even fit our requirements).
I think i’d dislike the F-35 less if the politics were even vaguely acceptable.
Unfortunately, we can’t really afford to kick up a fuss or significantly withhold purchases, as we don’t have a fallback, Tempest isn’t ready yet, and we have designed and built two £4bn assets around a singular aircraft type.
It’s a pipe dream but in my dreams we convert the carriers to CATOBAR and develop another aircraft type that we have full control over and is also just more suitable for the UK’s requirements either as part of the Tempest framework or as part of the rumoured BAE x post-FCAS partnership.
6 Likes