im trying to get an AI to make it a image but i keep getting abrams
So did i, gone wrong
Not sure what is that
Is this the lost Vicker MBT mk 6?
How is that a Cr2?
3 Likes
To be fair that does look like if the Vickers mk 3 had a facelift.
Do we think Gaijin will ever buff the mantlet armour for the Challenger 2? Most other tanks have their mantlets artificially weakened, I can’t see them making an exception for the Challenger 2.
IIRC one of the benefits of the L11 and L30 was their small gun breeches and surrounding mechanisms, allowing more armour to be placed around it. More power was derived from the barrel length over propellant size, so the chamber didn’t have to be larger and stronger to withstand the rounds fired from it unlike the larger L44.
That’s bitten the Challengers in-game in the ass, unfortunately, since the armour is missing and the breech is meant to act as pseudo-armour in-game. However the breechblock mechanism of the Challengers are so small that it can just be bypassed without the armour it should have. I’ve been one-shot through it.
5 Likes
Actually scratch that it looks like a soviet tank of some sort
It will probably be the same but with the trophy system actually intergrated properly
Now that I have the Merkava 4, it’s evident to me that the Merkava 4 boasts superior mobility compared to the Challenger 3, not necessarily in terms of speed, but notably in its ability to make turns smoothly, whether to the left or right. Interestingly, despite its heavier weight, the Merkava 4 manages to outperform even the M1A2 in terms of turning capability.
I exaggerated a bit, not that much, but it’s almost the same.
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gasYUQ4gGUaT
From reading this bug report i doubt they fix anything on the Challenger 2 as they don’t have documents of a tank in service explicitly stating it protection and just keep the the CE values the same as saying it improves and it is much thicker the the previous ERA doesn’t prove their is some improvement as they cant use any assumptions to model it and just keep it the same as stuff thats old
This is why NATO tanks are not modeled as good as Russian ones as the info on ours is limited and gajin refuses to make educated guess and low balls everything to the point that it doesn’t make sense
5 Likes
STANAG level, what’s that? Even their low balls are wrong as even the most rudimentary guess for the TES would give the ERA alone a chemicals protection level of at least 750mm to be able to stop the rpg 7 with tandem head (which would have been the standard rpg during the introduction of the TES). It may be controversial but I am more concerned with the chemicals protection as it’s the most likely thing we can get fixed and I’m fed up getting killed by heat rounds and atgms when I really shouldn’t.
Funny thing when the tes first came out it had 1200ce protection then got nerfed cause boo hoo ka50 cant kill it
Level 6 people found the info on the NERA but because it doesn’t say exactly how much ce protection it has it does nothing
Also STANAG levels from NATO
6 Likes
@Smin1080p i know in bug report you said the no definitive numbers on the protection but why when it was first introduced did it have more realistic protection of 1200ce then nerfed to the protection of the Challenger 1 era when the TES has completely different thing which NERA
1 Like
If only Gaijin could fix the mobility of the Challenger 3 and provide proper protection for the gun mantlet to stop it from breaking all the time, that would be good, but they can’t even do that. The gun keeps breaking consistently. Gaijin only knows how to balance two things in this game…
two years for this, Gaijin seems to be very focused on Challenger 2, apparently.
What?
Gaijin: Can resist 30mm cannon = only 30mm KE
Very funny
3 Likes
Isn’t the era ASPRO-H and not Shield R?
I for one am looking forward to the copeblog where a handful of measly nothingburger pity changes happen and everyone gets told to do one.
Should be a funny read.
I really fell for it and thought it was mk6
Spoiler
To add a link
we will need another secondary source probablay for that its ASPRO-HMD to maybe create a bug report