Best I found till now is that they did research on spall liners.
And this nice caricature
2 Likes
Can someone tell me when they buffed the chally 1 mantlet? I remember it having a massive gap in the composite either side of the market so when did this change? Or am I going insane and the line between the 2 challys is blurring.
Occurred when the CR1 model was reworked
Hello CR1 discussers, here’s a report I made on increasing the current 3-round ready rack to 20 rounds minimum.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/u2en3wtHitWA
8 Likes
my tankograd books about chieftain and challenger arrive on the 2nd January lets hope we get more spicy info from that
2 Likes
Kinda neat article I came across about UK trials of 3-colour “NATO-style” woodland camo using Challenger 1
From this RTR Journal
British Army named the pattern SCAPP. IIRC it’s labelled CARC on US and German tanks in-game, which it’s commonly known by since the scheme was adopted by the US in parallel to transitioning to Chemical Agent Resistant Coating.
Maybe one for Gaijin to consider adding for CR1s as well since the tiling pattern is already ingame for some nations. Else, a nice idea for historical camo makers.
As mentioned in the article the vehicle has some other alterations for other trials it was involved in; like a different fume extractor, and what ever that extension above the starboard turret smoke discharger is for.
2 Likes
Community Bug Reporting System @Gunjob any chance you can get the ball rolling on this one buddy so hopefully we can get some working hesh again?
5 Likes
Is there any desire to see the Mk1 ingame? Lack of a gunner’s night sight seems to be the only major difference to me, though I’d love to know more if anyone has info. Maybe it has gunner NV?
I’d be happy to see the Mk1 at 9.3-9.7, given its lack of TI capability.
Lack of a gunners night sight being night vision or thermals? Personally I think it would be great folded in after the Chieftain Mk.11. Just need to replace L23 with L23A1 for the mk 10.
The main upgrade from the Mk1 to the Mk2 was the addition of the TOGS 1 thermal sight in a cutaway on the right side of the turret (you can see on the pic above that the right side of the turret lacks the cutaway). I’m just not sure if the Mk1 had a passive night vision sight prior to the Mk2 upgrade.
I agree with the placement, would be viable to see it as the top tank in rank VI. It’d be in line with the T-72A at 9.3.
“1984 - Barr & Stroud/Pilkington Optronics Thermal Observation and Gunnery System (TOGS): The Challenger Mk 2 (variant of the Challenger 1, not the Challenger 2) enters service equipped with the TOGS thermal imagining system. I’ve read from a German source that this was inferior to the American and German thermal sights, but I have no further detail on this. It seems TOGS-equipped Challengers were still rare in BAOR in Germany even by 1987, too.”
Fair enough. I bet it did have an image intensifier because the commander and driver had one. It would be pretty neat at 9.3 with the Chieftain Mk.11 with TOGS. We still need the Cent Mk.13 at a low enough BR. Does anyone know if it used anything other than APDS, HESH, or smoke?
No mention of CR1 Mk1 having a gunner’s image intensifier, just a day sight and a backup, unless this No 9 sight is day/night. Anyone got a CR1 Haynes to find what night sight it had before TOGS?
“The gunner has a periscope Tank Laser Sight No 9 Mark 1
with a magnification of X 1 and X 10 with an 8.5 degree field
of view. The laser rangefinder is an Nd-YAG with an operat¬
ing range of 300 to 10 000 metres and an accuracy of ±10
metres for 90 per cent of shots. The gunner will also have an
emergency No 87 periscopic sight.”
“Jane’s Main Battle Tanks Second Edition”, 1986
If the No.9 sight is only a day sight then it will be a Vickers Mk.3 situation where the commander has NVD’s though I doubt that the Army would be stupid enough to field a tank without a night sight after every tank before it had gunner NVD’s. Well every tank after the Cent mk 6/1
1 Like
The fact we still don’t have a Mark 11 Chief is a traversty in itself.
6 Likes
06SP40 and other tanks without the TOGS barbette were preproduction/prototype vehicles.
Production Mk.1s had the TOGS barbette, it was just empty when the vehicle was delivered to the British Army
2 Likes
I thought that may be the case, I saw there was some mention of the barbette being left vacant in anticipation of TOGS from B&S as it was already in design/production. Cheers!
It would probably have to be 9.3-9.7 in br and it would just suffer with low speeds compared to everything else, and constant uptiers would make it unplayable, still i’d love to have it
I personally think it would me moreso 9.0/9.3 because it’s not really a massive leap in capability. Besides you have the Olifant at 9.0 with practically better everything.
for some odd reason i would rather like a shir 2 to have something at least a bit different
3 Likes
nuh uh, MBT-80
1 Like