Always difficult when I can see the fix is in progress but can’t say owt haha. Glad to see it’s done.
I dont get something. They say that HESH model shells set the tank on fire currently, but they explode when they get hit. I dont get it.
Also some of the Charges lose the ability to explode. Well cool i guess, bag charges are inert and the sabot charge is supposed to burn down slowly with space in the bins used to let the gases expand freely not making them explode, but huh?
I will have to wait for official explanation.
2 Likes
Probably just better off testing it and seeing what behaviour the ammo has now.
1 Like
Checking the upper turret racks, which are modelled as sabots, and therefore I’m hoping that the cheek racks shouldn’t implode the moment someone dumps a DM33 or Mango round into them at 100 metres range.
Realistically if the charges are hit it should destroy the tank in game. I don’t have the documents to hand at the moment, but IIRC the situation was basically:
The APDS charges were designed to burn if penetrated, the crew would have a chance to escape, but the tank was expected to be destroyed by the resulting fire.
When the L23A1 APFSDS round was introduced it came with the new L8 charge, which was much more volatile. After it entered service it was discovered that if the charge was penetrated in any way, even by small pieces of spall, it would “always detonate” instantly killing the crew and resulting in the tank being “completely disintegrated”.
That is why they switched to using armoured charge bins in the later Challengers and Chieftain, instead of the pressurised ones. They concluded there was no way to stop the L8 charge from detonating if penetrated, so decided all they could do was armour the bins to try and stop them being penetrated.
They did eventually develop the less volatile L14 charge to replace the L8, but not until the Gulf War.
So even if we take it as the charges should burn instead of detonate the crew would still be killed or badly burnt if they stayed inside the tank.
3 Likes
Yea i know, if the charge was hit the tank was most likely lost either way. I just wonder where are they trying to go with changing some of the charges to fire only.
As for what charges we have in game, dunno, they just blow up and it is fine. Tank would be unusable either way.
It’d be a combat “kill” in the sense that that vehicle would need recovery and substantial repairs to make it usable, if it had survived a fire for instance.
Any news or signs of life from the thermal resolution correction?
Had a good bug fix today:
Need to test to see if it actually fixed it
9 Likes
is the challenger 1’s armour true to life yet? haven’t played in a while
hull is underperforming a little, turret is closeish enough.
close enough to be a hull down monster, which is good enough for me. I just leave city maps half the time, dont got to stick on a map that your tank literally cant function on.
1 Like
So the best strategy would be:
Hill dence maps=CR1
City maps= Vickers or just leave lol
i just cant get myself to play the vickers, i just know ill die everytime to a guy who gets a “lucky” hit to my mantlet… I just stick to my 2 challengers and the bishma if i need to play cqb.
Eh, it’s more than survivable enough. Although I play everything like a light tank :shrug:
Vickers Mk7 moment, double the composite volume of the CR1, but only 70% the effective armor. Despite using the same armor technology. Gotta love it.
5 Likes
Be nice it we could find some actual concrete blueprints of it’s make up. There is a bug report stating it’s protection is too low and it was acknowledged… But you know they had to nerf the challenger 3 within a month first… Community Bug Reporting System also Community Bug Reporting System
1 Like
Ahh. sorry i forgot it’s a british vehicle so they need at least 1 year. And will still probably mess it up. challenger 2 RIP
6 Likes
Unless it’s a nerf and it’ll be fixed within a month
3 Likes