If nothing else, it reads very poorly…
“Next up, let’s take a look at this report created by Legwolf regarding the protection values of the Challenger 2’s ERA. We’ve seen that Armor Shield R is noted to be equipped on the Challenger 2 TES and Challenger 2 OES and is protected according to STANAG 4569 level 5.”
That reads exactly like my report has stated it’s using Armor Shield R.
1 Like
Please check out the blog, it offers full details on the current plan. Until that modelling work takes place, I do not have any further details that I can add to whats been said today at this time.
I am curious why it took this long to correct the issue prevalent on the challengers
A couple of factors there. This report with the most useable information was only made 8 months ago. Previous investigations on other reports did not yield any meaningful results. Along with this, we also undertake our own further investigations into matters, to try and find more detail and information on a given topic. This all naturally takes time, coupled with all the standard works that are going on in the meantime.
I mean if this ensures the mantlet isn’t as bad as it is ingame now I’m all for it tbh… and while the side armour is … slightly annoying the main problem for me was the mantlet
1 Like
Not too sure what went wrong with the Challenger 2 ERA segment:
It references Armor Shield R as the ERA → it’s not, it’s ASPRO-HMT
It references Armor Shield R as STANAG 5 but it’s not, it’s STANAG 6
It references the current implementation of the ERA being STANAG 5, but uses the analysis tool to prove that, which counts the entire armor array, not the individual bricks. If anything, this proves the exact opposite of what the post was trying to say?
If they’re meaning to say it IS Armor Shield R, then they proved themselves wrong here anyway because Armor Shield R is a STANAG 6 product which they show it isn’t?
So…is it Armor Shield R (STANAG 6) or ASPRO-HMT (STANAG 5) to Gaijin???
2 Likes
Neither. Just Copy paste Varma from Cr1 mk 3
The post only makes sense if you:
Don’t know what Armor Shield R is
Don’t know that Armor Shield R is a STANAG 6 applique armor
Don’t know protection analysis counts everything behind it so with that in mind, they prove the opposite of what they’ve concluded in their post?
3 Likes
Ah yea, boost you expectations up, as ASPRO-HMT was mounted on bradley, so it should protect from its round(more probable than the italian guns) so 95mm of ke. It would also corespond to being better than VARMA, as VARMA had 82mm of protection at least.
1 Like
I hope you also take the time to get rid of those god awful camouflage nets and make them look actually good.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9K7GQuAH8Rkw
And to everybody here who’s fed up with my constant net talk, i just think there neat and i want the best looking tank to look even better :)
2 Likes
Welp time to grind Sweden or Russia instead, t’was a waste of a good few hundred hours.
Props to y’all who spent the time trying, did a small amount but yeah overarching issues of it being the worst MBT in the game ain’t gonna get fixed unfortunately.
y’all think sweden will still be meta in top tier in a year and a half?
2 Likes
Its bad but its not the worst in the game
Yeh it could be the ariete… heheh
forgot latest chally has dm53 now, which takes away a major part of what made the Ariente better, still, the speed and turning is just more meta.
Look I think it’s certainly not great but look at what everyone else got.
We’re being told the tank is going to be remodelled, the turret cheeks improved, spall liners for every angle, the mantlet reworked, etc
The only downsides are the ASPRO-HMT is still disputed and the ERA on TES/OES is not functionally suitable for its place at top tier.
and
The backing plate for the ERA is no longer composite (it never was, and this change while damaging to TES’ side protection is accurate). Now, they’re saying it’ll be aluminium, but it’s actually steel and a bug report submitted to support that fact.
Win some you lose some.
The big one too, is that the ammunition positions are being reworked, meaning you wont die to having HESH in your drivers seat.
The tank is getting mobility changes too which is great to see.
Frankly, look at what Abrams got: Nothing.
Look at Leopard with D-Tech: Nothing.
Look at Ariete and the other forgotten tanks: nothing.
We got a really decent outcome which can be slowly worked into being better.
4 Likes
The Ariente is still worse just look at the penatration heat map
Just to very breifly catch everyone up here - i’ve been in discussions with Smin regarding the current implementation of the TES’ Applique armor bricks meeting STANAG 5.
They do not.
When firing at a brick using Dardos 25mm APFSDS at 30 degrees angle of attack, you get full penetration of the brick: Failure to meet STANAG 5 standards.
Smin told me the developers interpretation of STANAG 4569s wording is that the angle is from the vehicles heading. So 30⁰ ± off the heading line of the vehicle. This comes with its own crazy implications but lets run with it.
Same conditions. Same result.
They’ve based their STANAG rating off of their Protection Analysis indicator turning red and showing its not penetrable, but this counts the ENTIRE armor array, not the individual block.
Both times, regardless of interpretation, the brick fails STANAG 5 requirements.
Information forwarded to Smin.
13 Likes
To put it in a TL;DR: There’s no circumstance where the ERA in game successfully stops a 25mm autocannon round at 500m, 0 degrees elevation and 30± angle of heading OR angle of attack.
4 Likes
The thing is, we would need to prove that the plate is thiccer there. We can see the plate is split into 3 parts, and that the front part must be 40 due to front fenders, but if the 2 plates covering crew compartment are thiccer or no we do not know
1 Like