Jump to content

Best answer

1 hour ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:


Well, I hope that, despite the sources having been removed and rejected for legal purposes, the mantlet will still be fixed.

 

After all, we now KNOW for certain that it’s wrong ingame, and we now know, for a better extent, how it should actually be.

 

I wonder if we will have the mantlet fixed… and I hope so!

 

There is no valid source material that can be used. Therefore no change will take place. 

 

We have made it very clear our stance on source material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, NoblemanSwerve said:

It's not all tank-on-tank, and it never will be, but I feel it's still valid to say smacking about monkey-model T-72's isn't the same as going up against mod '89 T-72B's and T-80U's. Especially considering M89A1 and L26 were both incapable of defeating K5. 

 

What it was useful in showing was the logistical capacity for the equipment to work, in what was undoubtedly one of the most difficult theaters of operation for an MBT to zoom about in. 

Oh sure, Saddam's army was nothing like the real Red Army.

 

But I think the action did show some strengths of Western 3rd gen MBT over the rest.

Thermal sight/FCS for example played a heavy role in it, allowing the tanks to spot earlier and fire further away. Soviets didn't start installing thermal until 1992 with the latest T-80UK.

 

Anyway, the frontal armor of Russian tanks remains tough and the gun remains deadly even after the dissolution. I have no doubt they could slam through Western Europe dealing plenty of damage to NATO. Without extensive CAS or tactical nuke they were near unstoppable.

Edited by Loongsheep
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

But the last pages have been basically people roasting the real life Challenger 2, and Challenger 2 fans defending it to death. People fighting over how good the tank is in real life like it’s a personal matter or something…

That is a fair assessment, but in the defense of those involved in that (myself included), when members are trying to claim a vehicle with a long and VERY successful combat record is rubbish because it only got one export deal is kind of a complete Joke....especially when they try to claim other vehicles who have had either 1 or 2 export deals but NO combat records are wildly superior and successful

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


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

only really the russians who have them on tanks currently?

Not even the Russians have seen any meaningful APS deployments. The only true active use of APS, have been with Merkava 4Ms in very low double digits and the US, but we don't know the exact numbers. Korea is almost there with every K2 already having the milimeter radar pre installed, but they haven't made any significant pushes on mounting the interceptor units. However the CR3 is in a pretty good position atm being a new development. The Trophy being designed around and specifically for use in the Merkava has lead to some less than ideal integration on NATO tanks. The Abrams placement - while not ideal - is perfectly fine for an afterthought system, but lets just hope the Leopard's placement isn't finalized as it's basically begging to lose a couple hundred thousand dollar AESA radar or two in every engagement. Hopefully the CR3 was better able to replicate the placement of the radars on the Merkava, up and away from where it would be easily damaged, as they could plan for it in the design phase.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:


I think all of those factors are important for War Thunder

 

But the last pages have been basically people roasting the real life Challenger 2, and Challenger 2 fans defending it to death. People fighting over how good the tank is in real life like it’s a personal matter or something…

Yes to be honest this discussion is largely irrelevant to the game. Most of the factors in discussion will have no bearing on the tanks performance in game. Gaijin makes the armour up for most tanks and many other features that pose a pro/con in real life are not modelled in game to begin with. 

 

The whole top trumps discussion of tanks is pretty pointless. History has proven that having the "best" tank doesn't count for much anyway. So what are people trying to prove? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


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

Yes to be honest this discussion is largely irrelevant to the game. Most of the factors in discussion will have no bearing on the tanks performance in game. Gaijin makes the armour up for most tanks and many other features that pose a pro/con in real life are not modelled in game to begin with. 

 

The whole top trumps discussion of tanks is pretty pointless. History has proven that having the "best" tank doesn't count for much anyway. So what are people trying to prove? 


Exactly!

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lukkyb said:

Is there any version of challenger 2 with ADS built into it or is it only really the russians who have them on tanks currently?

CR2 Medusa.

Black Night.

 

Both of which have basically the cheapest/lowest end possible APS on them on the market.

Edited by Korvetten
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

CR2 Medusa.

Black Night.

 

Both of which have basically the cheapest/lowest end possible APS on them on the market.

Concept/test beds arent in service vehicles are they?

 

Just like "street fighter" isn't an in service standard for the platform

Edited by Mippie
medal medal

Share this post


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

Concept/test beds arent in service vehicles are they?

 

Just like "street fighter" isn't an in service standard for the platform

Yes.

 

The nearest in service example will be CR3 with trophy.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the most recent Q+A:

Quote

Q. In the British MBT branch, Challengers 2 and 2F are uncompetitive in relation to new tops for other nations (as an example Leo 2A6, Swedish Leopards, new T-80BVM from the Soviets). Do you consider the Black Night technology demonstrator from BAE Systems with the Iron Fist APS, as well as the Rheinmetall Challenger 2 LEP with a new weapon, as possible new vehicles to update the top MBTs of this gaming nation?

  • We do. The first option is a little more favorable than the others. But yes, there are not so many options for new MBTs for Britain.

 

Pretty interesting and unexpected answer.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CToID said:
Reveal hidden contents

Why these places don't have the composite armour? 

The plates dont reach there because of the elevation trunnion.

Edited by Korvetten
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/07/2021 at 20:38, _Fear_Naught_ said:

 

 

 

 

 

Almost if not all tanks have a gap between the armor array and the mantlet, I can find a photo for basically every single tank showing such a protrusion, it's how you fit a elevation drive into a turret without things like a cleft turret or semi cleft.

The measurements in game a considerably good guess considering photos of the tank's shell construction.

 

Furthermore the lip over from the turret cheeks is present in game, pay closer attention to the x-ray model.

Lastly, the back part of the gap is most definitely not the armor array and is instead the turret shell.

 

 

Unless for some reason, the tank has a more spherical composite array like russian MBTs, the gap is present all the way into the shell of the turret.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/07/2021 at 00:28, _Fear_Naught_ said:

 

 

 

These measurements are highly hopeful and the pictures scale brings many questions, the total amount of armor is hundreds of mm more than it physically can be.

 

Even with the trunnion extended forward and a more adjusted thickness you are not going to achieve enough armor to stop anything what a top tier MBT is going to be firing as its regular round.

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, [email protected] said:

@Smin1080p Can this be used for a bug report. The document is unclassified. It quite clearly shows the ingame mantlet area is wrong.

 

This would be very unlikely.

 

This excerpt does not have dimensions, these were added by @_Fear_Naught_ later as far as I can see. The devs have also been shy about using previous CR2 aesp excerpts as it appears they have found it difficult to verify the unclassified status of the pages provided. FOI requests and clarifications can be quick and easy or an absolute pain in the arse depending on who is dealing with it, so I would not necessarily read much more into it than that.

 

Interesting all the same.

Edited by Shirazz
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 

This would be very unlikely.

 

This excerpt does not have dimensions, these were added by @_Fear_Naught_ later as far as I can see. The devs have also been shy about using previous CR2 aesp excerpts as it appears they have found it difficult to verify the unclassified status of the pages provided. FOI requests and clarifications and be quick and easy or an absolute pain in the arse depending on who is dealing with it, so I would not necessarily read much more into it than that.

 

Interesting all the same.

I'm more on about the actual construction itself. We have no cylindrical trunnion block but instead just a flat block.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [email protected] said:

@Smin1080p Can this be used for a bug report. The document is unclassified. It quite clearly shows the ingame mantlet area is wrong.

 

Before any discussion, handling or bug reports are even made, proof of this documents declassification will be required as well as where it was sourced form. If it is declassified, it should be available to the public. 

 

Last time such a document was shared that was claimed to be "unclassified" it was in fact still classified and was confirmed that it should never have been shared.

 

We make it very clear that we will not handle any source material unless it is publically available and fully declassified with the rights to prove that. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/07/2021 at 23:28, _Fear_Naught_ said:

Linking those screenshots with the following edited image from the AESP's which is meant to show the relationship of the various components.

 

From DE&S (Defence Equipment and Support), MoD Abbey Wood:

Quote

I can confirm that it does appear to be a genuine extract...  It certainly has not been released under FOI previously by DE&S or considered for redacting.  We also do not recognise the “Unclassified” stamp as something that has been used in DE&S.

 

We have written confirmation from MoD that this document remains classified. By continuing to disseminate it you are in violation of the Official Secrets Act as stated by the warning on the cover of the document, an offence which can carry up to a 14 year prison sentence if prosecuted. Of this you are already aware, as a service person you have signed a declaration that you understand the act and what actions it compels you to take. Every time you post this you place us (International representatives of Gaijin), especially any UK citizens, in hot water as the warning so helpfully states that unauthorised retention of a protected document is an offence.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 4
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that there are still parts of this page where the document in question is visible (I.e. quotes and so on) and while I am not an expert on these matters, I would recommend that Gaijin delete the posts in question so that the image is appropriately sanitized from the thread.

Edited by Serria159

TheElite96 (Posted )

Should be cleaned up now.
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...