check this
The important thing is that the armor layout of CR1 and CR2 is different
At first, I had the same idea as you, but my understanding is that
CR1 does not have a huge mantlet structure，armor doesn’t need to swing with Canno either
But Challenger 2 has a huge mantlet. From the video and photos, it appears that this armor will change its angle with the Canno
CR1 did not have this two things
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/d/a/daf6ccc0d223c3e0048422c94cddc0eba2974551.jpeg
These two parts perfectly match the Casting turret
You are probably right concerning «the mounting hardware »
Above I am saying that this part represent the mantlet from the point of view of soneone who is inside the tank, not from the point of view of somebody which is outside like you guys are saying.
I think that because I can’t see how you could mount the gun to that thing in a more efficient way, the mounting hardware could basicly fill those hole, assuring some sort of weigh saving which could allow you to put more armor at the front of the mantlet for example.
I dont see any reason why this side of the mantlet would be the « front » section of it, how did you guys came to the conclusion that it represent the « front » section ( the section «visible» outside of the tank) and not the « back »? (the section « visible » if your are inside of the tank)
I dont have any proof of what I am saying so I am probably wrong, but it just seem more probable.
Also…
Why would you want the mounting system for the gun to « be separate from the rotor » , resulting in a less efficient design due to the increase weight?
I cant reply more than 3 time because it my first time actually posting something.
I think facing outward can facilitate maintenance and replacement of parts
you can reply more than 3 time
Yes it is a probability.
Also if you are looking into the 2 holes (where i put the red), you can see at the end that it is round. Because of that you can conclude that the hole start at the back of the rotor not at the front like it is shown in the dev server because of the way that the compartment for the rotor is made.
I don’t think there is a big difference in the KE of armor between facing outside and facing inside, but it depends on the challenger’s production method. Don’t forget that this is a cast turret
just hope the rotor gets resized to to its true size tho
Tomorow, I will make a better sketch so you guys could better understand what I am trying to say.
If the hole are facing inside of the tank it make mounting the actual breech far easier.
But yes if the holes are fill the protection will be the same.
1 Like
In fact, I asked the same question as you on Saturday. But everything in this theory is based on the structure of L11A5 (CR1. The biggest difference between CR1 and CR2 is that the external armor does not move up or down
We may be able to buy a plane ticket to Ukraine and drive to Zaporizhzhia (hopefully we won’t be hit by missiles), where there’s everything we want to know
In fact, if this hole could be filled, I wouldn’t care if this theory is true
The problem is that if the same structure is used as CR1, then CR2 does not need to go through a lot of trouble designing a new mantlet structure. They can simply copy the cast turret structure of CR1
@DevilO6 @Fireball_2020 What are your opinions?
Once they (R) get their hands on the Challenger and Abrams, it’s possible they’ll publish some armour analysis that would help improve the tanks in the game.
The other potential sign(s) would be if the US / UK starts a crash program to refit them, with more advanced arrays or we see a change in the deployed configuration(s).
Or we see the proliferation of more advanced ATGMs / Shells, or otherwise new developments.
I highly doubt the UK would invest in CR2 armour improvements when CR3 is in the works, and we already know that new Farnham/Epsom will be in use
i understand what youre saying and ive allready tried to explain that but ppl say that what goes inside those holes are locks for the pins.
i think the same way you do, theres something like the cr1 where an arm would fit in there and a pin would atach to it.
also, the picture of the rotor seems to show a wider hole for the gun and then slightly thinner. isnt the gun a bit wider next to the breech? if it was turned inside it would fit perfectly.
There is a 50mm (iirc) plate behind the rotor, that the gun is attached to.
@Fireball_2020 can you drop the mantlet diagram you made?
The one that include the plate behind the rotor. Or it is THAT diagram?
