AceFliesGaming

The Future of the Challenger series tanks

So I'm sure that I don't have to say anything about how out matched the challenger tanks are in the game so i came up with a few things that could really help. THESE ARE ALL JUST MY OPINIONS

 

First lets talk about shells used by each of the Challengers CURRENTLY:


 

Challenger 1 Mk.2: 9.7 BR

L15A5 (APDS)*Stock*- This shell should not even be on this tank, just get rid of it in my opinion.

L23 (APFSDS)*Tier 2 mod*- This shell should be the new stock shell as it is good all around but not crazy good.

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod*- This shell should be moved to tier 3 modification so that the L26 could be added to this tank.

 

 

Challenger 1 Mk.23: 9.7 BR

L23 (APFSDS)*Stock*- Should be dropped in favor of the L23A1.

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod???*- There is no way that this should be a tier 4 mod anymore. I think it should be given stock and have the L26 added at tier 3 and the L26A1 added at tier 4.(I know the L26A1 wasnt used on the Chally 1s nor is it in game but just wait)

 

 

Challenger 2: 10.0 BR

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Stock*- Should be dropped in favor of the L26 for the stock shell.

L26 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod*- Should be moved to stock. Filled in research with L26A1 at tier 2 or 3 and the L27A1 CHARM3 shell at tier 4.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is what I think the Challenger tanks should look in game. Some shells will not be historically accurate but its in the name of balance.

 

Challenger 1 Mk.2: 9.0 BR

L23 (APFSDS)*Stock* 410mm flat-pen at 10m

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 2 mod* 396mm flat-pen at 10m

L26 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod* 471mm flat-pen at 10m

 

Challenger 1 Mk.23: 9.3 BR

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Stock* 396mm flat-pen at 10m

L26 (APFSDS)*Tier 3 mod* 471mm flat-pen at 10m

L26A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod* ESTIMATED 470-490mm flat-pen at 10m

 

Challenger 2: 9.7 BR

L26 (APFSDS)*Stock* 471mm flat-pen at 10m

L26A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 3 mod* ESTIMATED 470-490mm flat-pen at 10m

L27A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod* ESTIMATED 500-550mm flat-pen at UNKNOWN DISTANCE (Would be a very good test for Depleted Uranium Shells [DU] because of the relatively "poor performance" of the 2-piece shells)

 

I suggested the new shells in order to make up for the slower speed, more weakpoints, and worst top tier shell in comparison to other tanks at top tier. Don't get me wrong, I think the L26 is a decent shell when it works properly. 

 

I will be doing some more posts soon in order to address other add-on packages or modernized variants of both the Challenger 2 and Warrior vehicles..

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

(I know the L26A1 wasnt used on the Chally 1s nor is it in game but just wait)

 

It was. Challenger 1 Mk2 and Mk3 both had L26.

 

The estimated I think need a lot of investigation. Someone posted a chart showing L26 from the L30 gun as pretty dang powerful recently. Lots more digging needed.

 

The first step is modelling them correctly. Giving them the right ammo, the right armour, the right mobility, the right damage model. Then we see where it gets us...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mk.2s were issued L26A1 for the gulf war after being field-upgraded extensively. The mk.2 as we have it does not need L26A1.

 

The Mk.3 should have it as its represented in game as a TES vehicle.

 

L23 does not exist and should be removed in favour of L23A1, likewise L26 is just another name for L26A1.

 

L15A5 is fairly reasonable on the Mk.2 from a historical perspective but L23A1 should be a tier II mod.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Challenger 1 Mk.2: 9.0 BR

 

Nope.

 

9.7 is a fine battle rating for the Challenger's capabilities, moving it down to 9.3 is questionable, moving it down to 9.0 is utterly insulting.

What's even worse, is that ontop of the absurd battle rating, you also plan on giving it a shell that lolpens anything at any distance at any angle.

 

The problem isn't where the Challenger's sit, it's a problem of some of the opposition being under-tiered, mainly the current new batch of MBT's, which should be moved up considerably.

 

8 minutes ago, AceFliesGaming said:

Challenger 1 Mk.23: 9.3 BR

 

I think L26 = L26A1?

 

Also, why's this one at 9.3 and not also 9.0? they're virtually identical, shouldn't these atleast be consistent?

 

8 minutes ago, AceFliesGaming said:

Challenger 2: 9.7 BR

 

Current L26 seems to pen stuff just fine.

Also, again, the Challenger 2 doesn't need a down-tier, it's opposition needs an uptier.

 

 

 

Seriously, what you're suggesting is as follows:

- A tank that's more mobile than the T-64B.

- A tank that can lol-pen the T-64B anywhere across it's hull and majority of it's turret from distances of around 4000m.

- A tank that's largely immune to the T-64B at even point blank range when hull-down.

- A tank with significantly superior gun handling.

 

Yet you're putting them on the same BR.

This is just further BR compression instead of decompression, which is exactly what we don't need.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

Seriously, what you're suggesting is as follows:

- A tank that's more mobile than the T-64B.

- A tank that can lol-pen the T-64B anywhere across it's hull and majority of it's turret from distances of around 4000m. 

- A tank that's largely immune to the T-64B at even point blank range when hull-down.

Mantlet tho

- A tank with significantly superior gun handling.

 

Yet you're putting them on the same BR.

This is just further BR compression instead of decompression, which is exactly what we don't need.

While I mostly agree on your assessment, I don't think you need to bring up the absolutely worst 9.7 tank (T-64B) just to make a point everytime.

If anything, 9.7 is also the home of one of the best tanks in game (Leopard 2K).

Edited by Loongsheep
  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

While I mostly agree on your assessment,

Mantlet tho

 

Which is why I said ''largely''.

 

No tank is fully immune hull-down.

 

Quote

I don't think you need to bring up the absolutely worst 9.7 tank (T-64B) just to make a point everytime.

 

There aren't that many 9.7's around.

 

It's either the T-64B, the Challengers (which are the point of discussion already) or the Leopard 2K. (Edit) forgot about the AMX-40 and Ariete, though I have no clue how those perform.

 

A Challenger 2 with L27 also really shouldn't be tiered equally to a Leopard 2K.

 

Quote

If anything, 9.7 is also the home of one of the best tanks in game (Leopard 2K).

 

Meh, it's not as good as it used to be, the ammunition it has is starting to get a bit dated, similar problem as the M1's are now starting to face, except they atleast have the reload advantage over the Leopard 2K.

 

Edited by Necrons31467
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

No tank is fully immune hull-down.

I would say the Leopard 2A5 is, unless facing Soviet HE (assuming hull ring is also behind cover).

 

17 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

It's either the T-64B, the Challengers (which are the point of discussion already) or the Leopard 2K. (Edit) forgot about the AMX-40 and Ariete, though I have no clue how those perform.

The AMX-40 and Ariete are kinda like slower Leo 2K with a little more armor. IMO both better than Challenger 1 and far better than T-64B.

 

17 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

A Challenger 2 with L27 also really shouldn't be tiered equally to a Leopard 2K.

I am a little against adding L27, because the Wehrs would cry for DM53, almost guaranteed.

Chally 2 with L26 is a OK 10.0. Maybe leave the L27 for a future 10.3 CR2 with add-on armor.

 

17 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

Meh, it's not as good as it used to be, the ammunition it has is starting to get a bit dated, similar problem as the M1's are now starting to face, except they atleast have the reload advantage over the Leopard 2K.

Somehow I get killed more often by the 2K than the A4 or A5 (lets say I get kill 5 times a day by it, vs 4/3 times for the other Leo2).

Its 20mm is very annoying when it sprays to block your aim.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A further note on L15A5 as it seems to be a point of contention. Balance issues aside, its inclusion on the Mk.2 is not very far fetched. The OE GSR for L23A1 started in 1978 and the round was accepted into service likely in 1984. The Mk.2 is a 1985 tank and its extremely plausible for it to use L15A5 as a stock round, the UK was extremely late to the APFSDS party.

 

I would prefer the upgrade L23A1 ammo to be a much lower tier modification, but that is gaijin's prerogative.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Baron_Tiberius said:

A further note on L15A5 as it seems to be a point of contention. Balance issues aside, its inclusion on the Mk.2 is not very far fetched. The OE GSR for L23A1 started in 1978 and the round was accepted into service likely in 1984. The Mk.2 is a 1985 tank and its extremely plausible for it to use L15A5 as a stock round, the UK was extremely late to the APFSDS party.

 

I would prefer the upgrade L23A1 ammo to be a much lower tier modification, but that is gaijin's prerogative.

Well the Brits were kinda cursed by the L15, it was more powerful than early 105mm APFSDS so they thought it was enough to handle future threats - this led to a late start on developing APFSDS.

I recall one document claiming the "M1 Abrams has better anti-armor capability than Challenger using APFSDS, but once 120mm APFSDS enters service, the situation reverses". So Chally 1 was definitely without APFSDS for a short while.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They only realized how well armoured the 64/72 was in like 1977, and then panicked to make the L23A1 which is why it was an OE. Looks like L26 program started in 1980 but was likely interrupted by ROF being privatized as IIRC actual L26 was a revised BD26 which was a "unsolicited proposal" from Vickers.

 

Edit: and yes, that document was from 82/83 and Haynes places L23 acceptance in late '84.

Edited by Baron_Tiberius
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

I would say the Leopard 2A5 is, unless facing Soviet HE (assuming hull ring is also behind cover).

 

Indeed, HE is a problem, and it still gets breeched regularly, like the Challenger 2.

 

Quote

Chally 2 with L26 is a OK 10.0. Maybe leave the L27 for a future 10.3 CR2 with add-on armor.

 

Indeed, Chally 2 stays 10.0.

M1A 1goes 10.3.

Leopard 2A5/T-80U go 10.7 or 11.0.

 

Quote

Somehow I get killed more often by the 2K than the A4

 

That's probably because people use that to grind the 2A5 at the moment.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really is no need to change up the BRs to punch everything higher than the Challengers.

 

If correctly modeled with their ammo, armour, mobility, they'd be fine opposing the others in game, enough to be competitive. Even with just L26 on the CR2.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Challengers 1 are now have no armor against T-64B, T-80B even at turret, officially 

20190313115631_1.jpg.979cfc09f86d4d76453

 

20190313115622_1.jpg.fda352ad13ccff4044d

They are not overall  better them in other parameters.

So, it is better to choose somewhat L2K than the CR1 since they both have no armor against them, but L2K has much better mobility and survivability. It's more variative than CR1 which can no longer perform safe hull-down gameplay.

 

Proposal:

L26 is 500% NECESSARY to give to CR1 in order to balance them back.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Nope

 

2 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Seriously, what you're suggesting is as follows:

- A tank that's more mobile than the T-64B.

- A tank that can lol-pen the T-64B anywhere across it's hull and majority of it's turret from distances of around 4000m.

- A tank that's largely immune to the T-64B at even point blank range when hull-down.

- A tank with significantly superior gun handling.

 

Yet you're putting them on the same BR.

This is just further BR compression instead of decompression, which is exactly what we don't need.

It's not more mobile, they have pretty much same mobility.

CR-1 has more  1-2 hp/t than T-64B but T-64B has less t/m2 ground pressure. So they are same!

T-64B can now lol-pen CR-1 anywhere, so it would be fair if CR-1 will  pen T-64B back.

 

Edited by Harry325

Share this post


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

CR-1 has neutral steer and a much higher reverse.

You don't need to reverse if you bounce every shots.

BTW, T-64B still steers slightly  better just because of less ratio t/m^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Harry325 said:

It's not more mobile, they have pretty much same mobility.

 

Don't spread lies please.

 

                                            Challenger 2    T-64BV
Top speed:                         47 km/h              41 km/h
Acceleration to 40 km/h:  10:53                  11:07        
360° forwards traverse:   11:52                   9:94
360° reverse traverse:     11:72                  26:10
Neutral turn:                       20:39                 n/a
Reverse speed:                -36 km/h             -4 km/h

 

2 minutes ago, Harry325 said:

You don't need to reverse if you bounce every shots.

 

Indeed.

If only it didn't get lolpenned 24/7 by these new MBT's.

 

2 minutes ago, Harry325 said:

BTW, T-64B still steers slightly  better just because of less ratio t/m^2

 

Top speed is worse.

Acceleration is marginally worse.

Doesn't have neutral steering.

Reverse speed is drastically worse.

Reverse turn is drastically worse.

 

But hey! atleast it forward turns quicker amitire?? )))

 

6 minutes ago, Harry325 said:

So they are same!

 

Clearly, they are not.

 

6 minutes ago, Harry325 said:

T-64B can now lol-pen CR-1 anywhere,

 

No, it can't.

 

Hull-down Challenger 1 is still largely immune to 3BM-42.

 

6 minutes ago, Harry325 said:

so it would be fair if CR-1 will  pen T-64B back.

 

Already does.

 

  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AceFliesGaming said:

So I'm sure that I don't have to say anything about how out matched the challenger tanks are in the game so i came up with a few things that could really help. THESE ARE ALL JUST MY OPINIONS

 

First lets talk about shells used by each of the Challengers CURRENTLY:


 

Challenger 1 Mk.2: 9.7 BR

L15A5 (APDS)*Stock*- This shell should not even be on this tank, just get rid of it in my opinion.

L23 (APFSDS)*Tier 2 mod*- This shell should be the new stock shell as it is good all around but not crazy good.

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod*- This shell should be moved to tier 3 modification so that the L26 could be added to this tank.

 

 

Challenger 1 Mk.23: 9.7 BR

L23 (APFSDS)*Stock*- Should be dropped in favor of the L23A1.

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod???*- There is no way that this should be a tier 4 mod anymore. I think it should be given stock and have the L26 added at tier 3 and the L26A1 added at tier 4.(I know the L26A1 wasnt used on the Chally 1s nor is it in game but just wait)

 

 

Challenger 2: 10.0 BR

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Stock*- Should be dropped in favor of the L26 for the stock shell.

L26 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod*- Should be moved to stock. Filled in research with L26A1 at tier 2 or 3 and the L27A1 CHARM3 shell at tier 4.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is what I think the Challenger tanks should look in game. Some shells will not be historically accurate but its in the name of balance.

 

Challenger 1 Mk.2: 9.0 BR

L23 (APFSDS)*Stock* 410mm flat-pen at 10m

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 2 mod* 396mm flat-pen at 10m

L26 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod* 471mm flat-pen at 10m

 

Challenger 1 Mk.23: 9.3 BR

L23A1 (APFSDS)*Stock* 396mm flat-pen at 10m

L26 (APFSDS)*Tier 3 mod* 471mm flat-pen at 10m

L26A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod* ESTIMATED 470-490mm flat-pen at 10m

 

Challenger 2: 9.7 BR

L26 (APFSDS)*Stock* 471mm flat-pen at 10m

L26A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 3 mod* ESTIMATED 470-490mm flat-pen at 10m

L27A1 (APFSDS)*Tier 4 mod* ESTIMATED 500-550mm flat-pen at UNKNOWN DISTANCE (Would be a very good test for Depleted Uranium Shells [DU] because of the relatively "poor performance" of the 2-piece shells)

 

I suggested the new shells in order to make up for the slower speed, more weakpoints, and worst top tier shell in comparison to other tanks at top tier. Don't get me wrong, I think the L26 is a decent shell when it works properly. 

 

I will be doing some more posts soon in order to address other add-on packages or modernized variants of both the Challenger 2 and Warrior vehicles..

Honestly if we had a correctly modeled Challenger Mk2 and Mk3 with no APDS on the MK2 and no L23 on either models they would be fine in their current BRs but that seems like an extreme suggestion to be quite honest. 

I'd honestly take any other 9.7 (even the C1 Ariete) over the Challengers at this point. I even consider the T64B a better tank in game, plus it just got a much more powerful shell. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so the reason i chose 9.0 is because look at who you have at 9.7, the chally 1s cant compete against any of them anymore. Maybe with the new rounds but it has to be placed at a spot where that turret cant be penetrated. That is the only thing that it has going for it, and to give it a really good round would then make it so it can snipe reliably. It would need to be able to pen most things at its br. We do need a 11.0 br so we can decompress tom tier but right now at 9.0 it would still face Leo2A5s, T-80Us, M1A1 Abrams, ect. Lets be honest here, most games will be 10.0 or 9.7 that you play in. Maybe getting a few games every so often against T55s, T-62s, M60s, and Centauros, and the IFVs wouldnt be that bad. Could you pen all of these easily? Yes. Could you over pen these? Most of them yes. Could they all still pen your weakspots at 1500m? Yes. Think about it.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Don't spread lies please.

 

                                            Challenger 2    T-64BV
Top speed:                         47 km/h              41 km/h
Acceleration to 40 km/h:  10:53                  11:07        
360° forwards traverse:   11:52                   9:94
360° reverse traverse:     11:72                  26:10
Neutral turn:                       20:39                 n/a
Reverse speed:                -36 km/h             -4 km/h

 

It is you who spreading the lies, commie.

I don't see significant advantage here which justifies giving 3bm42 to t-64b.

8 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Top speed is worse.

Acceleration is marginally worse.

Doesn't have neutral steering.

Reverse speed is drastically worse.

Reverse turn is drastically worse.

Doesn't matter. 

Nobody says CR1 is  a mobile/agile mbt after all, it's mobility is below average just as T-64B

If you think different and don't see this too, I have nothing to say to you.

8 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

No, it can't.

 

Hull-down Challenger 1 is still largely immune to 3BM-42.

 

Another lie, commie. Go spread lies to somewhere else and don't confuse people here.

 

20190313115631_1.jpg.979cfc09f86d4d76453

 

CR1 was balanced with T-64B.  Now it's not. Giving L26 to CR1 is reasonable, will give him ability to fight with new mbt's just like 3mb42 provides same for t-64b

Edited by Harry325
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harry325 said:

It is you who spreading the lies, commie.

I don't see significant advantage here which justifies giving 3bm42 to t-64b.

Doesn't matter. 

Nobody says CR1 is  a mobile/agile mbt after all, it's mobility is below average just as T-64B

If you think different and don't see this too, I have nothing to say to you.

 

Another lie, commie. Go spread lies to somewhere else and don't confuse people here.

 

20190313115631_1.jpg.979cfc09f86d4d76453

 

 

Oh lord, getting a little too passionate.

 

Also idk if "commie" is a word that could be used or not in the forums, even though it's basically a shorter version of communist, I wouldn't recommend using it to refer to forum members, forum police might enter this thread.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW 

Did you guys notice that Gaijin added ESS to CR2, which took up the final slot on level 4 modification.

Probably if you want TEC package...another 390k or 400k rp grind?

 
 
 
Spoiler

102214324_TIM20190319094552.thumb.png.30

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, I don't want TES! All its gonna do is make the thing heavier and provide jack all armour protection against other MBTs. 

 

I would much rather the next (and potentially final?) Challenger be the 2E.

Edited by Baron_Tiberius
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.