Yes, that is how Gaijin views thermal resolution in the game. Sometimes. Some are third gen regardless because ‘documents say so’.
No you haven’t, how am i supposed to take your “source” when there’s no name to it aka there’s no source the same applies to the other image
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Do tell. Did Challenger 2s originally have 2nd generation thermals? If not, what sources were used to buff it?
Anyway. @Lyn_poster here you go:
3 Likes
God you’re actually delusional fine imagine this
i show up claiming x is x i post an image that says x is x you say x is y whats the source i say x is x its from “holder of sources” you say “holder of sources” isnt a source itself whats the document name i repeat endlessly “holder of sources” despite them not being a source
my god
The resolution of Sprite is very close to what is considered gen 2 in game
THANK YOU finally someone posts a source
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Well, what you posted says it. SPRITE was better than early gen 2. Later it fell off, but it was never changed untill TISP.
properly due to later thermals having a better maintenance cycle and other factors but not the resolution which is what matters in game
Yeah, that’s not how it works in reality. But OK.
One of the documents in DEFE 70/1890 at the National Archives
3 Likes
No, Gen is the main factor.
oh NO! Look guys its the arbiter of what is and isn’t a good tank! whatever will we do?
1 Like
We’re not pretending mr rifled gun and hesh with underpowered engine is good in 2024 i mean at least the main gunner sight isnt attached to the breech like the ZTZ-99
1 Like
I mean, it kinda is. While everyone was moving towards highly mobile, armoured platforms, the Chally was a slow, underarmoured box with a rifled gun from the 60s. It was so bad and outdated that they immediately refreshed the thing into the Chally 2.
1 Like
The consequences of MBT-80 being cancelled will forever annoy me
1 Like
British MIC goes ACK!
1 Like
trvthnvke
HESH proved itself highly valuable during Op Granby on the Challenger 1s and so when they were developing the Challenger 2, it was decided to keep that capability. Especially when you consider that tank vs tank combat was consider ever more unlikely in the 1990s and early 2000s. The ability to use HESH to take out buildings and fortifications gave the Challenger 2 quite a degree of value in a combined arms formation.
Yes, unfortunately it does. This is the MoD / British gov at work. But in part because reliability was generally considered more important and as far as I am aware, it is a very reliable engine.
That isnt true though. Dont take Gaijins modeling as evidence of that. The Challenger 2 was and still is considered one of the better armoured tanks in the world. Especially the up-armoured variants like the TES that took an insane amount of fire on several instances and came out virtually unscratched. It is only in a certain recent conflict that they have sustained any losses and even then, in part due to a lack of Dorchester external armour.
You also have all the things that gaijin doesnt or wont model. Like the Hunter kills system and targetting systems. There is a reason why the Challenger 2 routinely wins most NATO tank gunnery exercises with its “outdated” gun.