Jump to content
1 hour ago, barto667 said:

cold-war-6-0411.jpg.a6d3472aedfa369285cd20180413_122907.thumb.jpg.f1c9f914bb9d1f

IGVQF.jpg.5dc6847c0c1a957d72a06d524048e3

 

Interesting set of pictures! This shows how Challenger's frontal armor is actually modelled well and the LFP is actually such a weakspot. I have sometimes wondered if it was modelled right or if the composite should cover more of the LFP, but nope. it is fine.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 

Interesting set of pictures! This shows how Challenger's frontal armor is actually modelled well and the LFP is actually such a weakspot. I have sometimes wondered if it was modelled right or if the composite should cover more of the LFP, but nope. it is fine.

It's not the position people have a problem with it's the amount it provides. Many of which believe it's alot less than it should be.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dotEXCEL said:

gimme a list

 

Alright. A lot of the criticism is based on this little thing here: 

 

Spoiler

5kNlFQd.png

 

This is the pintle mount which replaced the unloved D-ring mounting mechanism for the loaders MG. And the reason this is relevant, is because it was changed during production and indicates that this is a later variant of Challenger 2. All set? Good, then let's begin. 

 

 

Let's start with 3 obvious things.

 

One: The Challenger 2 keeps the horrible Chieftain engine sound like the Challenger 1 (hearable in the intro of the small video of the devblog). It is really time for an update on this. 

 

Two: The Challenger 2 which was introduced today is a production variant. Therefore, the tank should have the double pin tracks. What we got is the CR1 single pin track which was only featured on some Challenger 2 prototypes. 

 

Three: While early Challenger 2's featured very similar (or the same) roadwheels as Challenger 1, they were soon replaced by the roadwheels with the small holes in them which are part of the Challenger 2's signature appearance. 

 

 

Everything beyond this is purely based on the devblog. We'll see what the CR2 actually performs like when they open the dev server. What I personally see as red flags are the statements that it would share a similar level of protection as CR1. Though this can be twisted around of course as it could either refer to the covered areas or the actual protection. 

 

However, currently it feels a little like the CR2 is going to offer less CE protection than even the M1A1, based on their wording. I know they stated "over 900mm" of protection, but this makes it sound a little like were only a little over 900mm and not significantly higher. Going from the CR2 Owner's Workshop Manual, the CR2 should offer "much better protection" in the CE category with its Dorchester armor. I know it is simply one book claiming this, but if it was actually worse than the M1A1, the British government would have bought the M1A2 as the higher CE protection was a huge factor when they made the decision to go for CR2. 

 

And let's stay with Dorchester for a second. It is nitpicky, but they could have just called it "Dorchester" instead of "newer Chobham". Names are there for a reason. 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 9
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well once again I think gaijin is jumping the gun. There's plenty that needs fixing at rank 6 let alone the problems another rank will inevitably bring.

We haven't even got l26 on the challenger I yet, so I'd hope that they at least add that alongside these new vehicles.

 

Probably an m1a1 and leo2a4c for US/Germany are along the way too, I'm unsure for russia (could be t-80bv or U, or some t-72 model). Japan will likely get type 10 soon, france the leclerc and italy the ariete (which we know is coming already). It's quite a lot for one update so I can only hope that gaijin releases them all at once instead of staggering them like last time (which totally threw the balance off).

 

As for Chally 2 I'm wondering what it will come equipped with. Will it get the best rounds currently available or not? In the devblog there's also no additional armour (ERA or chobham) so I'm wondering if we'll see that or have to wait for a newer Chally 2 to be released later. 

 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


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

Interesting set of pictures! This shows how Challenger's frontal armor is actually modelled well and the LFP is actually such a weakspot. I have sometimes wondered if it was modelled right or if the composite should cover more of the LFP, but nope. it is fine.

Actually, that white "plate" where you can see the red line stop, that's a spall liner and not an armour plate, as is evident by the tube going straight through it:

Spoiler

unknown.png

unknown.png

 

4 minutes ago, DELTACLUSTER said:

I know it is simply one book claiming this, but if it was actually worse than the M1A1, the British government would have bought the M1A2 as the higher CE protection was a huge factor when they made the decision to go for CR2. 

IMO, they'd have postponed or changed the armour somehow, they'd never accept another countrie's tank for their own use like that.

Share this post


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

 

Interesting set of pictures! This shows how Challenger's frontal armor is actually modelled well and the LFP is actually such a weakspot. I have sometimes wondered if it was modelled right or if the composite should cover more of the LFP, but nope. it is fine. 

Actually it covers a larger area, in the game it is a little higher. As specified above, correctly modeling the armor would not alter the capacity of the cr1, it would still be vulnerable in the LFP.
We must also consider that strange position of the ground.

image.thumb.png.101eb1443dfdb17fd104e186

Apparently in the image of the driver is not appreciated if the floor is flat from your point of view.

image.png.d2bb7f19b3f07fc887dfbed240f08f

Depending on how willing the vulnerable section is reduced. Although it is big, in the game it is too much.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I want confirmation they are using 'genuine' sources. the Challenger 2 in both CHARM and Chobham Gen 2 is still classified by the British MoD (national archives confirms this) 

 

I called this BS with the Challenger 1, you dont have 'all official' sources, sorry but I dont for one minute believe they have got sources confirming the protection levels on an 'already' in service tank with an 'already' in use 'current/modern' Chobham armour version, thats not even taking into account the CHARM ammo that is still heavily classified. 

 

This is 100% going to be a fantasy tank and no one will be able to disprove this BS of addition when they cannot even properly implement the Challenger 1...........

 

Guess we are going to the days of World of Tanks now.

Edited by TheCloop123
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 10
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheCloop123 said:

I'm sorry but I want confirmation they are using 'genuine' sources. the Challenger 2 in both CHARM and Chobham Gen 2 is still classified by the British MoD (national archives confirms this) 

There is no way they are. At best the values are going to be an educated guess based on stuff like LoS thickness and perhaps minimum protection requirements from the MoD, same as on cr1 and other mbts. 

At the very least I hope gaijin gives it good enough values for it to be competitive and balanced. 

medal medal

Share this post


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

I'm sorry but I want confirmation they are using 'genuine' sources. the Challenger 2 in both CHARM and Chobham Gen 2 is still classified by the British MoD (national archives confirms this) 

 

I called this BS with the Challenger 1, you dont have 'all official' sources, sorry but I dont for one minute believe they have got sources confirming the protection levels on an 'already' in service tank with an 'already' in use 'current/modern' Chobham armour version, thats not even taking into account the CHARM ammo that is still heavily classified. 

 

This is 1005 going to be a fantasy tank and no one will be able to disprove this BS of addition when they cannot even properly implement the Challenger 1...........

 

Guess we going to the days of World of Tanks now.

This is the best we have on CR2 armor effectiveness, from "Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Owners' Workshop Manual: 1998 to Present" by Lt. Col. DickTaylor, recently published. And yes, if you do the math the numbers do add up to the dev blog


229060190_Challenger2MainBattleTankOwner
 

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

This is the best we have on CR2 armor effectiveness, from "Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Owners' Workshop Manual: 1998 to Present" by Lt. Col. xxxx Taylor, recently published. And yes, if you do the math the numbers do add up to the dev blog



 

That source hardly specific at all.

What's more they're comparing it with the m1a1ha right ("new depleted uranium armour")?

In that case it makes no sense, as the m1ip already has 1000mm CE protection on the turret, let alone the m1a1ha. The devblog only states "over 900mm" protection for challenger II, so it seems that challenger II if anything has worse CE protection than the m1ip. That contradicts the source given.

Edited by Dantheman66
  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dantheman66 said:

That source hardly specific at all.

What's more they're talking comparing it with the m1a1ha right ("new depleted uranium armour")?

In that case it makes no sense, as the m1ip already has 1000mm CE protection on the turret, let alone the m1a1ha. The devblog only states "over 900mm" protection for challenger II, so it seems that challenger II if anything has worse CE protection than the m1ip. That contradicts the source given.

M1A1 block 2 was renamed later to M1A2

Edited by RoflSeal
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Actually, that white "plate" where you can see the red line stop, that's a spall liner and not an armour plate, as is evident by the tube going straight through it:

  Reveal hidden contents

unknown.png

unknown.png

 

If we take the statement that cr1 and cr2 share the same chassis,They should be the same dimensions. It would be difficult to obtain an estimation of the measure based on the photographs.

275225505_drivercompartiment.jpg.f45d64d1483170621_Interior1.jpg.580d2a678788c001745148639_Interior2.jpg.ce2a9c59024b733

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dantheman66 said:

That source hardly specific at all.

What's more they're comparing it with the m1a1ha right ("new depleted uranium armour")?

In that case it makes no sense, as the m1ip already has 1000mm CE protection on the turret, let alone the m1a1ha. The devblog only states "over 900mm" protection for challenger II, so it seems that challenger II if anything has worse CE protection than the m1ip. That contradicts the source given.

 

Or maybe... the source contradicts what Gaijin has given us?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

M1A1 block 2 was renamed later to M1A2

So challenger II should have significantly more CE protection than M1A2 right? In that case the point stands - the devblog states cr2 to have "over 900mm" CE protection (which implies below 1000mm), so already it falls short of m1ip let alone m1a2. 

1 minute ago, DELTACLUSTER said:

 

Or maybe... the source contradicts what Gaijin has given us?

Yes that's what I'm saying. Chances are the values gaijin has come up with are utter bs. 

Edited by Dantheman66
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

IMO, they'd have postponed or changed the armour somehow, they'd never accept another countrie's tank for their own use like that.

I really didn't expect reading something like this from a tech mod:016:

So you are suggesting that official British documents have been manipulated to get the CR2 picked instead of foreign tanks?

Edited by Loongsheep
  • Haha 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 

Or maybe... the source contradicts what Gaijin has given us?

Neither. While i have argued in the past that M1IP is overperforming in CE protection, the comparison in the book is not to that tank but rather M1A1HA/A2 which has improved KE protection at the expense of CE effectiveness (900mm according to the swedes). So, again if Gaijin states that CR2 armor will be 500-550 mm vs KE and "greater than 900mm" vs CE it does add up.

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dantheman66 said:

So challenger II should have significantly more CE protection than M1A2 right? In that case the point stands - the devblog states cr2 to have "over 900mm" CE protection (which implies below 1000mm), so already it falls short of m1ip let alone m1a2. 

Yes. And the CE protection of M1A2 is available from the leak of Swedish trial (assuming the document is real).

Note it is the early M1A2 and had armor value closer to M1A1 than the current SEP V2/3.

Edited by Loongsheep
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Yes. And the CE protection of M1A2 is available from the leak of Swedish trial (assuming the document is real).

Note it is the early M1A2 and had armor value closer to M1A1HA.

1) Yes, the swedish papers are true

2) not only M1A2 had "very simmilar" armor to M1A1HA, it had EXACTLY the same armor package ("1st gen DU")

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...