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?
And another thing for all those that think the holes should be on the inside
Look at the barrel, in the place it touch the rotor you can see crews, that go here
I don’t follow?
There was a diagram that showed all the plates around the rotor, but now i think it might have been the thing fear posted
yes but the screws can be on both sides