ah now the question is, do i give them money or do i sell my mirage
Reject the French
honestly what i’m tempted to do is buy one cheap… redeem it and then hold the other… to sell later
play them at their own game
Me when Su25BM does not go above 25
Does anyone know any measurements of the UFP and turret armour thickness of the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2? I believe I recall measurements were made for the Challenger 1s armour on an example at a museum, though I expect the Challenger 2s dimensions are more confidential. Why I’m asking is:
I believe the LFP of the original M1 Abrams was measured at about 700mm versus 750mm for her turret front, whilst further upgrades were made through new composites but also with the thickening of the turret arrays. Similar tanks’ composite hull armour arrays I imagine would have a similar ratio in thickness when compared to their turret arrays as the 1981 M1 Abrams, such as the Leclerc, Ariete, Type 90, and Type 10, and Challenger series.
The UFP of the Challenger 1, and even the Challenger 2, look to show a similar ratio in thickness as the M1s hull and turret armour in-game. The same applies to the Type 10/90 and Leclerc in-game who also appear to have hull arrays comparable in thickness to their turret arrays, but not the Ariete which is incorrectly modelled with only spaced hull armour where composite should be.
The hull arrays on the Challenger 1 and 2 seem to be of the same thickness as each-others, whilst there doesn’t appear to be increased outward thickness for the turret front. I’d like to know if the interior of the Challenger 2 was made more ‘cramped’ through inward thickening of the turret front. If not, I think it would be prudent to conclude that the majority of the increased levels of armour protection of the Challenger 2 was wholly provided by use of the more advanced Dorchester composite, and that quite possibly the protected regions of the hull front should provide similar levels of protection as the turret front.
The same conclusion would be made for other western tanks, namely the Ariete, Leclerc, Type 90, and Type 10. Presumably as with the Challenger 2 which uses Dorchester for both the hull and turret, the hull and turret composites would not be of different type from eachother. If their in-game thicknesses are also to be believed accurate, should their hull arrays not be as strong as their turret arrays? Besides, documents state these tanks as being ‘immune from the frontal arc’ against certain types of rounds, not only their turret faces.
For anyone wondering, you cant see the Challenger on this photo, but it is in between Sinky and typhoon, just driving at the bottom.
That’s not typhoon in the photo
Oh yeah, its a Rafale on closer inspection.
Also, though irrelevant to the Challenger 2 - is still relevant to the British tree:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/43K6goKgIcrN
I only know this thread and the Stormer HVM one really, I imagine here it would get greater recognition regardless.
That still gets a chuckle from me, just imagining Russian tankers sat in waist high water in the tank while the driver has to wear a snorkel to drive the tank.
explains a great deal i suppose
If in doubt,
Is a good place for General British stuff
Only gaijin could name a premium tank ‘click bait’ and still have people buy it. Cant wait for them to add the street fighter 2 with the name shit fighter 2.
Brimstone go flying into the ground
Well it fires upwards so it has to correct its path, it will just do it to much and straight into the ground
We must wait for them to add all the random variants of the Cr2 as event vehicles
Chally 2’s turret is overperforming, the hull also probably is and will probably come out to be around 420 ±20.