Jump to content
1 hour ago, Maverick966 said:

M1 Abrams, Leopard 2AV, T-72, T-80 ecc. in coming!

https://warthunder.com/en/news/5323-development-challenger-1-a-worthy-heir-en

challenger_1_1920x1080_logo_com_d5b1c649

 

  • Like 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

The firepower of the Challenger 2 is pretty bad by today's standard because it still use a rifled gun with 2 parts ammo.

 

I think crews can still maintain a decent rate of fire despite using 2-part ammunition; I have heard of experiments with British crews using single part ammo on some testbed tank or other and the crews being unable to achieve the same rate of fire, although I read that some time ago and cannot attest to the info's accuracy.

Edited by *AllahHuAirlines
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnQ11939ChtBan said:

There s needs to be an official answer to this by the devs themselves. Again, war thunder s main selling point was that it was attempting to follow some real world data. This is the turning point from that principle. 

Who cares its just advertisement. The point of the advertisement is to create interest in your product. As long as the advertisement is close to the actual product, no one except for extremist will care. It is just to get more gamers from the competition. As simple as that.

  • Sad 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, *AllahHuAirlines said:

 

I think crews can still maintain a decent rate of fire despite using 2-part ammunition; I have heard of experiments with British crews using single part ammo on some testbed tank or other and not liking it, although I read that some time ago and cannot attest to the info's accuracy.

even though with 2 part ammo, they could still sustain 6-7sec reloads on the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2

  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCloop123 said:

you might want to do some research on the L11 variants of the 120mm guns, because they seriously were not lacking compared to other nations, especially with the ammo they could fire at the times they were produced.

 

Oh yes they were.

There is no need to do lengthy research or to dig up data, it's physics, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pokenaut7 said:

Then why in the world do we have tanks like the Maus or E-100. 

Since we don't remove tanks previously added to the game. I don't fully understand the point of your comment. What difference would it make if we have tanks or vehicles that are not meta anymore? We still have B-17s, and they are flying targets for people to shoot down when they feel willing and able.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCloop123 said:

that is part of the issue, Chobham is still a trade secret by the British Government so any 'baseline' figures could be massively off because no one should in theory have access to this trade secret without some serious power in politics.

 

I do understand that, but the basic of making composit armor are known to everyone, the exact composition and implementation of shapes, materials, etc. is specific to each tank and classfied but the basic idea of how to make composite armor is known. If someone wanted to make a new type of composite armor, they wouldn't have to go from zero. The game will probably never be able to model every single material and implementation used in modern armor in the first place even if they had exact data and implementation of the Chobham armor on the Challenger or any other composite versions out there, the penetration mathematics are also not a detailed simulation but approximation at best.

 

As said, I do mind wrong armor profiles for tanks that we have in museums and know exactly how thick or thin they are and what material is used, but for modern tanks, I really have a higher bar for "make-believe" things, because I'm happy that we get more modern tanks in the game, even if they are not exactly 1:1 to the real life counterpart and one can say fictional to a degree. 

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darkshadow86 said:

It looks like we got a tank historian and expert over here. Please enlighten us on where you found that his source of information is incorrect. And do you have any better sources since you claim his to be garbage?

 

And you’re more qualified to speak on how modern tank armor works? Didn’t think so. 

 

How in those sources are garbage for representing “Chobham” is that it actually says this is the “Burster”array IN THE DOCUMENTS.

 

Nice try bridge troll. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alzoc said:

 

Oh yes they were.

There is no need to do lengthy research or to dig up data, it's physics, period.

ok lol I'm not even arguing with that, you believe what you want but I take my words from actual tank crew members.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, *AllahHuAirlines said:

 

I think crews can still maintain a decent rate of fire despite using 2-part ammunition; I have heard of experiments with British crews using single part ammo on some testbed tank or other and the crews being unable to achieve the same rate of fire, although I read that some time ago and cannot attest to the info's accuracy.

 

Not saying that 2 parts ammo degrade rate of fire, that's not the case it's about the same.

I'm saying that it seriously impact the maximum length of the rod on an APFSDS.

And a shorter rod mean worse penetration capability, there is a direct correlation here.

Edited by Alzoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

more likely through the lower front plate or the driver's scope/turret ring area.

 

I think Meo_Muri was making a tongue in cheek comment about APHE's notorious in-game ability to kill all of a tank's turret crew by hitting the commander's cupola.

Just now, Alzoc said:

 

Not saying that 2 parts ammo degrade rate of fire, that's not the casen it's about the same.

I'm saying that it seriously impact the maximum lenght of the rod on an APFSDS.

And a shorter rod mean worse penetration capability, there is a direct correlation here.

 

Fair enough, I see your point now.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alzoc said:

 

Not saying that 2 parts ammo degrade rate of fire, that's not the casen it's about the same.

I'm saying that it seriously impact the maximum lenght of the rod on an APFSDS.

And a shorter rod mean worse penetration capability, there is a direct correlation here.

again, do your research, British L11 guns were firing some of the best ammo of its time. i really dont have to say anything more on it.

  • Like 4
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Darkshadow86 said:

Who cares its just advertisement. The point of the advertisement is to create interest in your product. As long as the advertisement is close to the actual product, no one except for extremist will care. It is just to get more gamers from the competition. As simple as that.

 

Ahh.. I am one of the people who cares because that s one of the reasons I ve invested some money and time into this game. Anyway, there s need to be an official answer about this. My guess is that they found some soviet armor estimations for NATO tanks. That s what they re going to use. The point is: those values are simply estimations. 

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheCloop123 said:

ok lol I'm not even arguing with that, you believe what you want but I take my words from actual tank crew members.

Well that's a bad idea^^

Tank crew know how to operate a vehicle and can provide a good insight on thing like habitability or interior layout.

For technical specifications? Most of them don't know ****, and it's not a problem since it's not their job.

Edited by Alzoc
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCloop123 said:

ok lol I'm not even arguing with that, you believe what you want but I take my words from actual tank crew members.

 

Then how does the Rhm 120 and M256 on the Leo 2 and M1 Abrams have shell approaching 900mm penetration while the Chally II and it’s rifled gun still haven’t reached 800mm pen? 

 

Splain dat! 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking at it this way:

  • People lost their **** over addition of Chieftain Mk10, that it would be a huge powercreep
    • :D:D (yeah, sure it is, its pen is even nerfed with KNOWN data)
  • Its APFSDS should be able to defeat even T-64A through its turret cheek armor on 100 meters
    • :D:D (bahahaha)
  • Hull down it will be unbeatable
    • :D:D (5 gun/breech fixes per round, sometimes even both turret crew members taken out)

 

War Thunder meta eventually proved everyone wrong.

Maps are unfriendly mostly to hull down gameplay, especially with the maps in Tier VI rotation.

People here argue, that you will get defeated by T-34-85's ammo frontally. If that happens, it happens because HE shells are still buggy and defeat layered armors on daily basis.

Or you can be lucky and hit pixel spots, because eventually, shells are pixels.

 

There are tons of problems, that are not related to adding classified tanks and nobody gives a crap about fixing those.

I realized long ago, that damage is already done and getting rilled up about Challenger 1 is like.. I don't even know what it is like.

 

War Thunder does not take into account stuff like crew training, communications, firepower systems, defensive systems, overall view from the tank. These all make Challenger great IRL. 

Since I went through both M60 grinds and gonna go with RISE, I could care less about wrong/unknown armor values. 

 

People here making assumptions even before the eventual tank makes it into the game are like those "enter known franchise fans".

Currently people whining about Han Solo even before entering the cinemas.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Then how does the Rhm 120 and M256 on the Leo 2 and M1 Abrams have shell approaching 900mm penetration while the Chally II and it’s rifled gun still haven’t reached 800mm pen? 

 

Splain dat! 

proof? splain dat! oh wait you cannot because the L30 gun used on the Chally 2 is classified along with its ammo? so no idea how you know it doesn't reach even 800mm of pen lul

Edited by TheCloop123
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, duckmartin said:

So I wanted challenger 1 in game for a while but people said it wouldn't come in to the game because of its chobham armour and it's L26 apdsfs-du round XD 

 

Meh, it was a reasonable assumption that Gaijin would steer clear of tanks with classified performance values- but I guess Gaijin's hunger for cash trumped reason.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maverick966 said:

T64BV and Challenger 2 in dev server

01YgS1La_oI.jpg

MAYsAhXEXZE.jpg

Is the T-64BV frontally immune to atgms? I want that so bad for my T-64, atgms are so annoying on long range maps.

  • Sad 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...