The bug report was submitted 2 days ago, at least give it some time for them to try and correct it before you go ballistic.
it was correct in the Dev
The mantlet is 200, you can see by going into armour view and looking under the barrel. I shot a heat round at it and it only provided 389mm of protection at 4 degrees. This was through the thickest part of the mantlet and also included the 60mm plate infront of it. This shows it’s less than 400mm, and maybe proving there’s a plate behind it as well otherwise the mantlet wouldn’t even be 200mm which is now making the problem worse as where has this value come from.
That’s the point, the mantlet has gotten, considerably, worse since the dev. That’s why we’re so angry. None of the bugs that were reported were fixed all while more were introduced and then they came out saying it was all intentional. Do you see why people are angry.
3 Likes
I mean the bug report might not be on the main list
They’re different, the one in game is the technology demonstrater which is just a challenger 2 with a modified turret, the one I showed is the pre production Challenger 3 with a completely new turret and armour, it also has a thicker upper frontal plate if you look close enough.
Sorry, no. Farnham is not ready yet. To be precise the turret is 90% just a shell, no composite inside.
That is Epsom external armour that isn’t ready yet
No, Farnham is also not ready yet, at least nothing is suggesting it is. The tests on the composite prototype by itself were conducted but noting suggest it was mounted in the prototype
January 18. Contract singed for the armour.
January 23. Prototype 1 shown, that means it had to been made before.
1 Like
Firstly do you even want a good British MBT, secondly there is nothing to suggest it isn’t on it the signed contract is just for the full production of the armour
Yea, i think i do. Sadly i had the pleasure to deal with gaijin during the TD implementation, so i know how snail will look at it.
Yes it is for full production. As i’ve said the trials on the prototype were conducted somewhere in december, but there is nothing that suggest the Prototype 1 had it mounted. If we would want it in game we would need to prove it did, and we would need some kind of a statement about protection increase or we will get 64t Cr3 with Cr2 armour.
2 Likes
I mean the Tech Demonstrator we currently have is not likely to have any armour mounted, and the vickers Mk.7 also afaik did not have armour mounted (just ballasts). This isn’t really an issue for the game provided the protection specs are known.
im not sure if it was both 7 and 7/2, but 7/2 had it for sure, as there are docs stating it had very simmilar level of protection to Cr1
Well, they said that armour did not increased, and there are sticking out plates, most likely ballast but not sure
1 Like
Yes the protection level is known because the efficiency of chobham was known and the tank’s protection was designed - the tank itself (neither 7 or 7/2) was unlikely to have mounted the armour because as a one off demonstrator there is no need to produce custom armour biscuits.
let me find the docs (it will take me a while)
I am aware of the documents, you didn’t read what I wrote. The protection level was known because it was designed, not because they actually built a turret and shot at it.
i did, im just trying to fing out if there was something in them stating it was build or not.
The documents is describing the protection for potential export to Egypt, it doesn’t make any specific mention of whether the prototype has real armour in it because it’s not relevant. Ballistic protection testing happens when orders are placed and prototypes are made, not during the demonstrator phase when you’re still trying to get sales (it’s expensive).
You can see the relevant page here. My source for the tank lacking real composites is a FB post from the old product manager at vickers.
3 Likes
Tbf though France has like 3 more improved rounds they could receive and the Leclerc has almost as ungodly of a number of reports as the Challenger