Jump to content
1 minute ago, Godman_82 said:

Do what I did - forget about UK tanks being modelled correctly. From Chieftain Mk3 with awful turret armor and lack of ability to turn when stock, to current top ones. I have basically 0% faith that this tank is going to be half good.  

I just hope they put it in 10 br max. The same I share your opinion, the British of high level are tanks of garage (in the game obviously), nice to see but horrible to use.
If you want to make a profit and enjoy the game, you better go to the American or Russian branch. Unfortunately, a tank that serves as a long distance shooter and with so little information to properly model it can never be used in the game.
It is still too early to draw conclusions, but as they expressed in the forum, the cr2 is basically a backup of cr1.

medal

Share this post


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

omani-challenger-2-b.png?width=538&heigh
Challenger 2E.
Look familiar?

Its basically a CR1 hull and Chassis but with a CR2 turret with no or worse armor.

looks very similar to the model Gaijin gave us, huh?

Almost like this Challenger 2 is an EXPORT VERSION.

Apparently some of the early prototype Challenger 2s also had a similar looking suspension.

Spoiler

dEYnhz0.png

 

Edited by Mercedes4321
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mercedes4321 said:

Apparently some of the early prototype Challenger 2s also had the a similar looking suspension.

Indeed, that's Prototype V7. V6 and V9 had the regular Challenger 2 tracks.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Yes, but the production CR2 doesn't have them.

I know, which makes the model shown still a bit strange.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the cr2 of the game is not the production cr2.
If we take as a basis the development forum. We have the cr1 chassis and the cr2 turret, maybe a prototype or an export version.
I wish I knew what they took as a source to establish those values. If they took the book as a source, would it mean that books can now be used as a primary source or is it a sekrits documents?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, *oppsijustkilledu said:

So we can gather from this that the British tank playing part of the community is not happy with the addition of the challenger 2? I'm certainly not.

nope, I would have been 12 months later, after they fix several issues with top tier right now.

 

Specifically heli spam

RADAR issues (still no fix for the terrain/tree line tracking) 

premiums at the wrong BR's (XM1/L44) but thats partly thanks to 10.0 compression

10.0 as a whole being majorly unbalanced not just in US favours

CAS needs a total revamp 

Maps as usual, some of the worse ive seen in games (would love to spend a good 20+hours compiling areas to fix for all maps) 

 

the list goes on, but instead there priority was add the CH2 and Tier 7 meaning huge economy changes. oh lets not forget the formula changes.........

Edited by TheCloop123
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

So we can gather from this that the British tank playing part of the community is not happy with the addition of the challenger 2? I'm certainly not. 

The addition of the vehicle is not a problem. The problem is that information used to model the vehicle: technically there is no official document, the only source is the book that indicates a protection value less than the ammunition for kinetic ammunition and this is too poor to model the entire vehicle.
If they claim that they used the book to estimate the value of the armor, then the CE protection would be wrong, because we could take as a source the book of cr1 that estimates the protection at + -1000 mm CE for cr1, logically then the cr2 would have more values high
Also the displeasure comes from that the current cr1 of the game has problems in its modeling.

medal

Share this post


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

Challenger 2E.
Look familiar?

Its basically a CR1 hull and Chassis but with a CR2 turret with no or worse armor.

looks very similar to the model Gaijin gave us, huh?

Almost like this Challenger 2 is an EXPORT VERSION.

 

Please stop spreading misinformation. What we have here is not the Challenger 2E but an exported variant of the standard Challenger 2 for Oman. The Challenger 2E features new equipment over the British Army Challenger 2 with a full 24h hunter killer capability, a 1500 hp euro powerpack and cameras which leaves a more obvious visual clue on the front in the shape of a round black dot. 

 

1 hour ago, TheCloop123 said:

more respect......... I think the only respectable thing to do was Fix Tier 5/6 vehicles as whole (including the CH1) not add the CH2 and Tier 7 tanks when the economy is up the wall, penetration formula's are up the wall and the whole speedy boi meta.

 

This wasnt needed, maybe 12 months later when they fix whats currently wrong, but not right now.

 

We should give Panther the respect for his knowledge and research. I am glad there's people like him around. 

 

 

 

I would honestly hope the community and Gaijin would show more respect to one another. If we could point out kindly that this Challenger 2 is currently not really looking correctly and the devs would quickly respond with: "We got it. Give us some time and we'll fix it." so much more would improve.

 

Yet currently with how silent feedback from the dev side is (if there is any) and very reasonable bug reports about visual issues etc. being passed forward and not fixed for years it is really not a big surprise that voices in the community become more desperate and also more sharp in their tone. They lose hope with every remaining problem and they begin to feel like nothing is going to change. So what do they do? They try to make their words heard and they can't really see any other way than to become more urgent with their words. This is why this endless toxicity is going around and official voices are getting jumped at with: "When comes a fix? Do you know this? You made this wrong! And this! And this!" 

 

It is the result of people trying to carry feedback to the dev team about their loved machines and they don't see the changes which they desire. That misplaced stowage box on the turret side of Challenger 1 Mk.3 is in the same spot is has been for months now. So far... no fix is in sight and now with the Challenger 2, more visual and other mistakes arrive. 

 

 

This - as a fan of Challenger 2 - makes me incredibly sad. To see a single pin track on the vehicle when the original has a double pin track, to hear the standard Chieftain sound and to see the early roadwheels on the tank when it rather appears to be a later model is just such a bummer to me and it really makes me enjoy the game less. Everytime I log into the game and see the messed up model of the Challenger 1 Mk.3 it curbs the enjoyment of the vehicle as a whole and of the game. 

 

This is why I really really wish for the day to come when the community can point out a lack of a feature or a mistake without dozens of bug reports that appear to be shelved for a time when there is time, but with some pictures and an acknowledging member of Gaijin who can take the wish of the community forward to the devs. 

Edited by DELTACLUSTER
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

We should give Panther the respect for his knowledge and research. I am glad there's people like him around. 

I dont doubt his work, my issue is the developers/moderators have a track record of not listening to feedback thats warranted (or overdue) or they consistently push poor quality content out that as a whole displeases the players.

 

Just to name a few in the previous patches.

 

AMX 10RC issues....

Javelin Mk9 issues....

CH1 since its introduction.

M1 with its broken blow out that took I think a whole new patch to fix it (3 months)

Heli spam.... surely they saw this one coming.

Italian speedy boi meta.....

 

it goes on, they need to take a step back and fix what is wrong.

8 minutes ago, DELTACLUSTER said:

"We got it. Give us some time and we'll fix it." so much more would improve.

Thats the problem, you do this and they say otherwise.

 

The Javelin Mk9 case in point.

 

Report was made during the dev server regarding the flying tail not animating..... I got told the report never existed and had to show proof of the report on the Javelin Mk9 thread of it existing and being submitted. there not in tune with the community some (are and are not) is this that ticks me off, this CH2 looks like an export (but they dont mention it) It would be nice to mention it so players dont 'jump' the gun on figures thinking its an actual CH2 production tank (not an export version)

Edited by TheCloop123
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

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?

Excuse me?
I clearly said they'd have done something to the armour itself, not that they'd falsify official reports (though such things have been done in the past regarding weight of battleships for instance, to get around treaties).

 

It's quite clear that even if the CR2 had lower protection than the M1, they'd still have picked it over the M1, preferring to upgrade the armour later on or when making the new tanks.

 

4 hours ago, barto667 said:

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.

Next to impossible to get the actual dimensions from pictures (unless you have something which you can base it off).

But it seems like the Chassis was barely changed in layout and the armour thickness seems to be roughly the same.

 

However, you do have to take those spall liners (or liners to protect the crew from bumping themselves) into account when estimating how far the actual plate goes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´ll try to clarify the issue on M1A2 armor, which is likely being used by Gaijin to estimate CR2 armor. The point of contention is whether this graph 
 

Spoiler

1346282254_M1A2conclusions.thumb.jpg.6cc

 

 

Represents the M1A2 as in service with US military or not. Those who are inclined to say that this is a "downgraded" "export" version as in service with Saudi Arabia or Egypt point out that Sweden could not have tested the DU armor package nor could have it aquired it if the Abrams was chosen to be their new tank. This is only partially true because, if adopted, Sweden would have added extra armor to the tank since the swedes had higher protection requirements. Actually the Swedes made two types of test on every tank on the trial, they tested both the tank as in service in their respective countries (or soon to be in service as the case with the Leo 2A5) and also they tested sweden´s own upgraded armor package.

That was the case of the Abrams too. How do we know for certain? This is what Rickard Lindstrom (the guy who published the trials) had to say: "M1A2 hade ett ballistiskt skydd i exportversion. Skjutförsök mot dess bästa ballistiska skydd gjordes i USA. I övrigt var överlevnadsförmågan hos M1A2 bra då ammunitionen förvarades skild från besättningen." (source: http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm).  Translated: "M1A2 had a ballistic protection in export version. Shooting attempts against its best ballistic protection were made in the United States. Otherwise, the survival capability of M1A2 was good when the ammunition was kept separate from the crew".

Meaning: the swedes conducted ballistic tests against the DU armor as in service on M1A2 ON AMERICAN SOIL, thus circumventing legal obstacles, while the trials on Sweden were done on a ballistic test rig with add-on spaced armor (the same kind was added to the other tanks) but an undisclosed base armor. This is the result of the comparative test, the service M1A2 against Sweden modified armor:

 

Spoiler

1721654488_M1A2Turret.thumb.jpg.e86f4143

 

The top turret is the "Svenskt Skyd", the "Swedish armor" and the bottom one, the american DU. Needless to say that this confirms the first graph i posted, meaning that 600mm vs KE is the actual effectiveness "overall" on 2nd Gen DU on Abrams turret. 

 

If all this wasnt enough, look again at the M1A2 conclusions, and see that the armor in the hull (which we know is the good old BRL, in service since the first Abrams) behaves very differently than the turret front. Meaning: BRL CE effectiveness is more than double the KE effectiveness. On the other hand, the front of the turret (with DU inserts) only has 50 percent increase in effectiveness in CE (900mm). Why is that? Because higher density materials are less efficient against HEAT than APFSDS. Since M1A1 HA the US has traded CE effectiveness for higher KE protection.

 

All this begs the question: was 600mm of effectiveness ENOUGH by 1994? Check this below, its the certified penetration of 115-125mm Soviet/Russian made APFSDS up until 1991:
 

Spoiler

646265826_Russiancertifiedpenetrationnii

3BM46 is the original Svinets (aka 3BM48) and as you can see it would have had a hard time dealing with the front turret of M1A2. It wasnt until 2002 when the russians developed 3BM59 and 3BM60, Svinets-1 and Svinets-2 that 125mm apfsds was able to defeat M1A2 armor (and i SUSPECT M1A2 SEPV1-2 too). 

So yeah, 600mm may appear rather low by todays standards but it was actually "god-tier" armor for almost a decade.

 

 

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, *oppsijustkilledu said:

So we can gather from this that the British tank playing part of the community is not happy with the addition of the challenger 2? I'm certainly not.

 

I'm fine with it.

I just hope it gets a better round than L23A1, no stock APDS and NERA sideskirts sometime.

 

Tracks look off compared to the IRL CR2, hopefully that gets changed, like when they gave the Type 90 a rifled gun in it's devblog.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

omani-challenger-2-b.png?width=538&heigh
Challenger 2E.
Look familiar?

Its basically a CR1 hull and Chassis but with a CR2 turret with no or worse armor.

looks very similar to the model Gaijin gave us, huh?

Almost like this Challenger 2 is an EXPORT VERSION.

Quote

That was the Challenger 2E or as originally called the "Desert Challenger 2". It was an export variant but not necessarily the only CR2 to be exported. Oman purchased the CR2 with some small modifications to make it suitable for the desert environment - other than that there isn't much difference between a regular CR2 and an Omani CR2.

source:

 

Edited by dotEXCEL
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Oman purchased the CR2 with some small modifications to make it suitable for the desert environment

 

1 minute ago, dotEXCEL said:

there isn't much difference between a regular CR2 and an Omani CR2.

 

...the whole engine compartment maybe ? :rolleyes:

 

1550270503-21623882-1921807204808008-153

 

  • Like 1
medal

Share this post


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

However, you do have to take those spall liners (or liners to protect the crew from bumping themselves) into account when estimating how far the actual plate goes. 

Someone mentioned that gaijin has contacts in the museum, is it not possible to obtain the measurement of the discovered area ?.
You could also get a photograph of someone who has friends in the army and who could get a picture of the interior with an object to be compared, however I doubt Gaijin will take it as reliable information.
The current information however does not match, if we take the protection value of the document indicated by CHALLENGER I (500mm KE -Torreta, 275mm KE glacis) and assume that CHALLENGER II refers to cr2 and not to cr1 mk2, then it means that the Changing the composition of the shield achieved protection almost double. Then the protection of the turret should be much greater, which would conflict with the other source.
The only logical option that I find is that there is more space in the glacis than it appears, but as I said I could not be able to obtain an exact measurement, although the model of the game is higher than it should be.

medal

Share this post


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

 

 

...the whole engine compartment maybe ? :rolleyes:

 

1550270503-21623882-1921807204808008-153

 

really, seems like only addon filters to me

Edited by dotEXCEL
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, barto667 said:

Someone mentioned that gaijin has contacts in the museum, is it not possible to obtain the measurement of the discovered area ?.
You could also get a photograph of someone who has friends in the army and who could get a picture of the interior with an object to be compared, however I doubt Gaijin will take it as reliable information.
The current information however does not match, if we take the protection value of the document indicated by CHALLENGER I (500mm KE -Torreta, 275mm KE glacis) and assume that CHALLENGER II refers to cr2 and not to cr1 mk2, then it means that the Changing the composition of the shield achieved protection almost double. Then the protection of the turret should be much greater, which would conflict with the other source.
The only logical option that I find is that there is more space in the glacis than it appears, but as I said I could not be able to obtain an exact measurement, although the model of the game is higher than it should be.

No, the 500+mm vs KE is not coming from that document

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Auto_tracking said:

...the whole engine compartment maybe ? :rolleyes:

Generally the versions of vehicles sent to the Middle East are added or changed the filters to deal with the sand.

2 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

No, the 500+mm vs KE is not coming from that document 

4_2826f026b3a45082be6bdefcae7910fe.png

 

image.png.1eeacfc4fa4efe0a358ae71f939f51

 

image.png.ffa98af634370c20ef499de87b1338

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost sick of seeing that thing

CR1 will not be 500mm vs KE on the hull 

It's not happening 

for the same reason the Type 90 won't be immune to it's own JM33, there's simply not enough room for composite to reach that level of efficiency

 

Currently it's a joke, 500mm would be a joke just on the other end of the scale

Edited by *RAazzy91
  • Confused 2
medal medal 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...