The Challenger 1 does indeed have significantly superior hull CE protection than the T72A in real life and ingame.
However, the upgraded hull armour is not reflected ingame for the later Challenger 1s (Mk.3), it is still 580mm CE rather than the correct 700mm CE.
For context, the T72A is only around 450mm CE.
This is mostly an issue of KE penetrators being far more common in War Thunder matches than is realistic, purely due to the game’s design.
These numbers are headon right and not the minimum value across a 60 degree arc? I remember that being a point of contention a while ago.
I believe the turret value may be in an arc.
500mm KE likely reflects the turret protection when shot dead on foward, with 430mm reflecting the minimum protection within the arc of usually +/-20 degrees. Obviously the turret cheeks are angled in a way that getting shot from the side will make them a bit weaker, with the arc including the turret side protection as well.
If that is the case, then the turret armour is underperforming ingame, but some more info is required to know for sure.
Hull side armour values are also provided (Gulf kit only), so it’s a bit less likely those values are in an arc.
That appears to be at 90 degrees (flat on)
This is the issue with how the British have recorded the CR1 and CR2s armour values, they often do not state what the protection arc used is and the areas covered by each value are very large.
Regardless, the protection frontally for the CR1s hulls should still be 300mm KE for the early and 350mm KE for the late variants. This would not change dependant on the armour being measured in an arc, as those would be the minimum values within the arc and therefore it should be no lower than them.
The statcard values are a complete lie.
The real values are quite a bit lower.
The real KE value for those NERA screens is only 15mm.
Even that, sources sent to Gaijin said immune to all 30mm autocannon. Gaijin…30mm KE…
Great
CR1 is underperforming at 275mm not 300mm as it should be, i think this has been reported, or i atleast assumed it had been.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZtsHpZbAeyow
ahh yes i did.
Depends what round you’re using. Using 3bm22 it is indeed 330mm on the MK 1 and 350-357mm on the MK 3… The turret being 536mm or so. Testing with HEAT the ERA section is 740mm~, the non ERA section is 614mm which is odd. So maybe a CE buff is in order for the MK 3. But it seems to be actually pretty darn accurate.
It goes down to 275mm when you use NATO munitions because they aren’t monolithic tungsten carbide slug first gen darts… The reason the 3bm42 performs so much better despite only having a little more pen is due to the fact the penetrator is because it’s segmented and longer (long rod dart).
It seems the Challenger was designed with darts like 3bm15 & 3bm22 in mind. 3bm42 (Mango) was seemingly designed with modern NATO armor array in mind. Even then 3bm42 doesn’t exactly easily clear the Chally 1 turret.
Overall in conclusion. I think the Soviet Tree vehicles get 3bm42, and 3bm60 way too early in some cases. It nullifies almost the protection of certain vehicles with major disadvantages. But then what do you do with the M1? As it’s even more thoroughly protected on the LFP, UFP, and Turret armor… Should the original Abrams go up to 11.0? You can’t give it a weaker shell. So the Abrams would in theory be well protected, but more mobile than everything else. Which would feel imbalanced especially with such a fast reload, god gun depression, etc.
Should the T-72B be forced to use 3bm22 or just go to 11.0? But then why play that over the T-90A? Should the T-90A be forced to use 3bm46, 3bm42, or keep 3bm60? It’s objectively better than the T-72B 1989. Better turret, better mobility via the 1000hp engine, etc. It would be nice for the chalky to not see 3bm42 as much but then everything else kinda breaks.
Depends on the SHELL YOU USE. The type of armor design the Challenger 1 implemented was designed to disrupt monolithic first gen Soviet APFSDS. Which means 3bm15 & 3bm22.
The Challenger Mk 2 hull: 330mm to 337mm
Challenger Mk 3 hull: 350mm to 362mm
You could argue it even over performs armor wise on the hull. The issue is the Challenger 1 tends to not see many first gen monolithic tungsten slug darts. It sees a lot of non monolithic/long rod darts like 3bm42 or the NATO grade L23A1, DM23, M774, M900, M426/DM63, etc for instance. Which will degrade its effectiveness as it was designed against monolithic darts.
The best thing they can do is wait to give Soviet MBTs 3bm42. But then what do you do with vehicles like the T72B 1989 which struggles with slow to load, no reverse, no gun depression. All it has is armor and a good round.
I tested it, it’s 614mm to 750mm (if aiming at the ERA LOWER SECTION of the UFP against HEAT rounds fired from T-64B, and T-72). Tandem warheads will have a different affect. Again depends what rounds/munitions you use. I didn’t get below 600mm in any meaningful areas in the protection analysis on the MK.3 hull.
Thing is, against the penetrators it was meant to beat it slightly over-performs against KE and CE depending how you look at the 10mm-30mm difference. People are firing the L23A1, L26, DM23, etc expecting the numbers of what it would be against a monolithic 3Bm22. Not all rounds have the same properties. This is reflected in War Thunder. They are basically asking for NATO darts to have 0 difference compared to older 1st gen Soviet darts with bad characteristics…
Were there any changes to the tank in this patch?
CR1’s also got the turret ring treatment
Also looks absolutely nothing like the CR1/2 arrangement. Bet they asked Gemini to do it.
Shambles.
What can they change?
Been thinking about picking up a premium to grind Britain ground a little faster and was wondering if the Challenger DS is worth it? (I do enjoy a bit more of a slower playstyle if that helps)
The uptiers kinda suck (BMPToxic), but the Chally DS is one of the better 10.7s at the moment. Hopefully one or two of the more annoying issues on the CR1s will be resolved soon™ because we nagged like hell last major, but nothing yet.
Another option is the Khalid, which is a Chieftain Mk10 but with an upgraded engine. Also very decent at 9.3. (though not 100% sure if its available for purchase, think it is)
Thanks! Was considering the Khalid for a bit but i think the turret looks a little ugly imo :p (but i might get it instead since it’s a bit cheaper)
the Khalid is far more than a 9.3, it has been before and since the engine buff
not to mention the Mk.10 could get an engine buff of its own, up to 852ps through sundance which all Mk.10s undertook (up from the current 760ps)
Khalid could go to 9.7 right now with no changes with the DW and Rapier. And possibly a future Chieftain Mk.11 (only if it gets Sundance however)
I think it needs a small reload buff to finally push it over the edge.
