Oh yea, and no ramor in the rack so ammo boom you crew doom
yes as usual
So it doesn’t have a blow out Panel?
Meanwhile 😂
i dont think it has them
Have you tested the side of the T90M? It is so incredibly trolly
@Gunjob i need your help.
The Cr3 got the weight increase to 66t, that is the estimeed weight of the prototype that is/was supposed to be made by the end of the year, due to new armor (Farnham). But as Smin said, devs saw armor increase, but they did not knew how much, so decided to ignore it. How do i convince them to either increase the armor, or deincrease the weight without providing protection values of Farnham that max 200 people on earth know?
1 Like
yeah, 66 tonnes should be for the actual CR3 i’d imagine, not sure how it gets to 66 in Tech demo form given most of the components are newer and lighter.
Well, the tech demo is a Cr2. They Took Cr3 weight and Slapped it to Cr2 armor. Now how do i convince them without breaking into Rbsl and breaking multiple military laws
3 Likes
Devil06 - just to be clear, are you saying the “challenger 3” inherits all the same armour problems and issues of the challenger 2?
It might help, maybe not, but I read a while back that when the UK was debating the 2A4 we saw that the Germans were developing composite (D-Tech) which they thought at the time might be equivalent or better to the Dorchester or Chobham (apologies I’m not informed enough to know the differences).
Basically we know that it should have at least equal armour values to its equivalent LoS thickness in D-Technologie armour, as now RBSL is a majority German owned joint venture, there are fewer technology transfer limitations. So depending on the values for a new leo with d-tech you could try and argue it that way.
Because if Farnham was worse they would’ve just used D-tech or made it better?
Then again, its not written on paper, so its slim that it gets added.
The one in game, yes it is a c&p Cr2. Irl, no
Yea, i also knew that, but i wont go anywhere with that
Its not really something proveable its just kinda common sense, but that doesn’t transfer to the game.
I’m not sure why I expected anything else to be honest.
Ok
@Smin1080p i will be frank.
Can you ask the devs to take another look at the Cr3(p) armor or weight. It is supposed to be 66T as a complete tank, the tech demo is a modified Cr2 with the same armor. And devs went with 66t of the Farnham equipped, new turreted Cr3 and added it on the tech demo, while keeping the armor the same. Could you please ask them to reconsider one of the things. As it was said before it is a RBSL project, and they took Farnham over D tech, so it should be better. But ignoring even that. We get Farnham weight increase with Chobham protection. Can anything be done about it? Or is the Farnham protection value that max 200 people on earth know a absolute need for the change?
There was an interview somewhere where they said they werent looking at increasing protection yet and that the new turret added no extra weight so as to not compromise maneuverability, Ill see if I can find it
Well, the offical site tells that protection is increased
https://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/challenger-3/
18 rounds = 2 rounds next to the driver, 17 = 1, 16 = 0. At least now the Challenger 2 ceases to be an explosive tank :)
right right sorry, I meant for the 2019 LEP model. If thats the one they’re intent on, its a start for proving the weight is wrong without the armor increase