AceFliesGaming

The Future of the Challenger series tanks

9 hours ago, Harry325 said:

It is you who spreading the lies, commie.

 

M'kay.

 

Not worth my time.

Edited by Necrons31467
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

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.

 

As I've said a few times, making the initial TES (2003 era) a modification for the Challenger would give players the choice. Some people may accept the weight purely to have one that looks the way it does. Not all players are full on about absolute stat chasing after all.

 

2E would be a good call.

 

I posted a list in another topic about the variants you could put in to have the full range from no armour package, to each package type, to other more unique ones. No need to worry about cramming it all in one.

 

 

medal

Share this post


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

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

There is always the Challenger 2 fitted with a hybrid L55 smoothbore in 2006 for the CLIP. IIRC, it could only stow 6 rounds in the turret though.

Spoiler

aNixnPX.jpg

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Time4Tea said:

There is always the Challenger 2 fitted with a hybrid L55 smoothbore in 2006 for the CLIP. IIRC, it could only stow 6 rounds in the turret though.

  Reveal hidden contents

aNixnPX.jpg

 

 

Rush that first cap, stay there all game defending it to reload every shot.

 

Hey look, it's what Challengers need to do anyway due to game meta being detached from reality's tank designs :p

medal

Share this post


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

Rush that first cap, stay there all game defending it to reload every shot.

I think they were probably able to stick a few rounds in the hull too at least so it'd probably just translate into a long reload time after those 6 shots in-game.

 

7 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Hey look, it's what Challengers need to do anyway due to game meta being detached from reality's tank designs :p

It's not so bad when you have to do that if it's on a large map but then again how often do those appear at top tier?

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TES package came with an upgraded engine btw 1600hp hence why it can shift 

medal medal

Share this post


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

The TES package came with an upgraded engine btw 1600hp hence why it can shift 

 

I don't believe it did, unless you have a source I don't know of?

 

The only ones with upgraded engines known are:
 

Challenger 2E - New engine to 1,500hp.

Challenger 2 "Megatron" - Uprated CV12 for testing purposes only

Challenger 2 Rhm LEP - Rheinmetall's prototype said to have a new 1,650hp engine in it.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im on about megatron dude thats the tes package 

  • Confused 1
medal medal

Share this post


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

im on about megatron dude thats the tes package 

 

Megatron is not the "TES package".

 

Megatron has the TES on it, but it is the ATDU's tank, a singular, specific testbed tank, and is used for various tests, one of which was the uprated engine.

 

The "TES package" does not include the engine change, that is unique to only Megatron itself.

 

 

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen anything official stating the Megatron used 1600hp. Note that the CV12 is fully capable of up to 1600hp and Perkins even marketed it as a replacement for the Abrams' gas turbine and rated it to 1500hp. The issue is like either the transmission or the general reduction in operating life that using the CV12 at 1500-1600hp would do.

 

Other than that the Megatron is ~75t, so the hp/t is roughly the same as the Challenger currently has.

 

I've been meaning to write a suggestion on the 2E and clear up some info on it, as I honestly think its about the only way the UK will remain in the same league as the next generation of top tier tanks.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

I've never seen anything official stating the Megatron used 1600hp. Note that the CV12 is fully capable of up to 1600hp and Perkins even marketed it as a replacement for the Abrams' gas turbine and rated it to 1500hp. The issue is like either the transmission or the general reduction in operating life that using the CV12 at 1500-1600hp would do.

 

Other than that the Megatron is ~75t, so the hp/t is roughly the same as the Challenger currently has.

 

Note - I am not claiming "1,600hp" for Megatron, thats whatever Falcon brought up was saying for all TES, which isn't true. Exact information about what they did to Megatron's engine is basically unknown. The only real info that anyone got was people asking the crew at Tankfest and them saying they have toyed with uprating the engine during ATDU testing.

 

This, leading to your next bit, is why the 2E is a handier choice because...

 

Quote

I've been meaning to write a suggestion on the 2E and clear up some info on it, as I honestly think its about the only way the UK will remain in the same league as the next generation of top tier tanks.

 

As you say (and likely know), we know what the 2Es engine is and what it runs at. In game terms it'd basically just be a "faster Challenger" bar some small turret modifications.

 

Which is entirely fine.

 

Also the 2E looks pretty swish.

 

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Also the 2E looks pretty swish.

Indeed, the roof-mounted .50 cal would be nice to have, especially for early game rocket spamming helicopters:

Spoiler

1togoY8.png

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Time4Tea said:

Indeed, the roof-mounted .50 cal would be nice to have, especially for early game rocket spamming helicopters:

  Hide contents

1togoY8.png

 

 

Note that isn't a "normal" 2E. Thats a prototype, as it says, based on V9. The "actual" 2E doesn't have the TOGs, as an easy spot.

 

However it still has the M2, so yay for that.

 

 

medal

Share this post


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

Note that isn't a "normal" 2E. Thats a prototype, as it says, based on V9. The "actual" 2E doesn't have the TOGs, as an easy spot.

Indeed, I posted this picture as I can't find one of the final model but I think it retained the M2.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Time4Tea said:

Indeed, I posted this picture as I can't find one of the final model but I think it retained the M2.

 

I have a pic but work doesn't have access to that site, but if you google for "Challenger 2E" on images, you'll see it in bright yellow with no TOGs and an M2 up top.

medal

Share this post


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

 

I have a pic but work doesn't have access to that site, but if you google for "Challenger 2E" on images, you'll see it in bright yellow with no TOGs and an M2 up top.

Ah, there it is:

Spoiler

UVmiTAR.jpg

 

Always weird seeing a CR2 without its mantlet mounted TISH with versions like the 2E and Rheinmetall's LEP proposal.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was only one 2E, which was a modified V9 or V3 (there is some confusion on the exact model as Vickers mislabelled them at one point for a publicity photo). It was progressively changed from the Greek trials up until it was no longer offered for sale. Later updates lost the TOGS sight on top of the gun, for instance:

 

unknown.png

Edited by Baron_Tiberius
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/03/2019 at 07:03, 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 has a great round and no armor. Good speed and maneuverability. Get hit by anything and that's it. lol

 

There's the TL;DR for the AMX-40. lol

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really agree with the brs you suggest. You suggest moving the challengers all down, when we should be getting the max br raised to 11.0 instead (I'm surprised it's not been done already). You're also underestimating challenger tanks a lot I think. On videos I've seen (like one napalmratte released recently) and stats from players here, challenger 2 is not a bad tank and is able to rack up kills pretty well. It's lacking in the ability to cap and brawl, but there it relies on US tanks to do the legwork. Unfortunately US aren't doing to great currently so that holds CR2 back.

L26 at 9.0 is also far too generous. Even without l26 no way should a challenger 1 be below 9.3. You're pushing for more br compression which is the opposite to what we need. 

 

Assuming leo2a5 sets the benchmark at 11.0, then the challenger series should look like this;

 

Challenger 1 MK 2 (l23a1 upgrage, l23 stock): 9.7 

Challenger 1 MK 3 (With l26 upgrade round, l23a1 stock): 10.0

Challenger 2 (Current configuration): 10.7

 

For future additions:

Challenger 2 TES (l27a1, possibly l28a1)..... 11.0

Challenger 2 LEP (rhienmetal proposal)...... 11.3-12.0, depending on what it actually gets. This tank might eventually come into service as Challenger 2 mk 2, and we would probably need more info on it. It would probably be more comparable to the top German/US tanks to be added, like leo2a6 or leo2a7, m1a2 sep ect. Personally I don't think we should go beyond br 11.0 though. 

 

As a side note, challenger 1 did recieve l26 in real life. It was issued it during the 1991 gulf war and it was then known as the l26 jericho round. This round would be more historically accurate on CR1 than CR2 I'd wager, as CR2 used CHARM 3 more often. 

Also note that if gaijin throws the challenger 2 a bone and fixes the mantlet it might be worthy of slightly higher brs but we would have to see. 

Edited by Dantheman66
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with adding the L-44 rheinmetall variant is its still just a proposal and not even prototype yet, the CR2 TES on the other hand is very real. As TES stands for theatre entry standard this means that in the event of a war right as of now each and every CR2 would be fitted with that package, so in some ways the TES variant is more realistic than the current base CR2, as that is what would go to battle against tanks like the t-80bv etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, _Gl1tchyTech02_ said:

The problem with adding the L-44 rheinmetall variant is its still just a proposal and not even prototype yet, the CR2 TES on the other hand is very real. As TES stands for theatre entry standard this means that in the event of a war right as of now each and every CR2 would be fitted with that package, so in some ways the TES variant is more realistic than the current base CR2, as that is what would go to battle against tanks like the t-80bv etc.

There is a demonstrator for the Rhinmetal 120, at least two the new Rhinmetal LEP CR-2 Mk2 (CR3) and an earlier variant which was thanks same turret with the Rhinmetal gun.

Edited by TerikG2014
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, _Gl1tchyTech02_ said:

The problem with adding the L-44 rheinmetall variant is its still just a proposal and not even prototype yet, the CR2 TES on the other hand is very real. As TES stands for theatre entry standard this means that in the event of a war right as of now each and every CR2 would be fitted with that package, so in some ways the TES variant is more realistic than the current base CR2, as that is what would go to battle against tanks like the t-80bv etc.

It's been built already and is a fully functioning vehicle


The only issue would be finding data for armour (which is new on the turret if not the hull as well) as well as the internal layout (ammo placement ect.) which is different to the older CR2. 

D0hRkZ7WsAArohX.jpg

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/03/2019 at 09:57, 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..

What do you mean L27A1 will be a good test for DU rounds? We have had DU ammunition in the game for a while. Also, lowering the BR for these tanks would make life absolutely hell for lower tier tanks, which would not be able to pen a properly emplaced Challenger 1 or 2. Surely the Challys have lower performance than other tanks, but they are still really good and would stomp everything

Btw, L23 and L23A1 are not the same, L23A1 uses a different W-alloy with higher density, and L26 and L26A1 are also not the same: L26A1 has higher operating pressure and thus is incompatible with L11A5. 

  • Confused 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.