Combine the three Challengers 2 of 11.7BR and you will get the best challenger in the world (RH120L55A1, 1500HP MTU883, IRON FIST APS)
1 Like
We would be buying the new engine/powerpack though, which would then be completely different to what’s in use in Trojan, CARRV, etc. We’d also need to buy spare parts for maintenance and rejig logistics, as well as make the structural changes needed for the different powerpack and cooling (which may or may not be more significant than any changes needed to accommodate the planned upgrades).
Pretty much what they should be going for with CR.3 to be honest.
They won’t, but its nice that its obvious what they should be doing but can’t afford to do.
I think at this point its more likely that they just switch the hull to an upgraded 2AX hull though.
LoL As long as they stop wasting taxpayers’ money on useless places, there is a possibility of upgrading the challenger to the world’s advanced level…
At present, the company with the closest cooperation with British tanks is Rhinemetal, which can be replaced with Rh130 under the premise of retaining the current turret, and the hull can use a ready-made KF51 chassis.
1 Like
I think it would be very, very poor for whoever has to explain that we not only sold out our ability to make any remotely okay hull at a reasonable price, but they also chose to then not reinvest in it and buy German.
But better to have a workable tank and reinvest than keep a mediocre one.
1 Like
Eh, I have a feeling that the MOD is thinking like the Canadians used to and Belgians do. That largely big heavy MBT’s are largely at a dead end (for now) and they’d prefer to sit on something cheaper than invest in something more expensive that on paper ultimately won’t fulfil their needs. How correct that thinking is, is up for debate, the Canadian’s very quickly got MBTs back in once they deployed to the middle east, and there’s rumours Belgium is looking at procuring a new MBT, but I wouldn’t place much weight on them.
1 Like
CV-90-120 perhaps might be something for them to look into.
The Documents that Gaijin don’t want you to know about:
I seriously doubt TES’s ERA should be only 550mm CE. It’s so thick it should be able to stop 800mm Vikhrs, Atakas or TOW-2A so there is at least some reason to play them over the other Challanger 2s. Also Chally 2, 2F and TES should drop to 11.0 maybe even 10.7 there’s no reason for them so be at 11.3 when everything else is so much better
1 Like
They wouldn’t be broken at 10.7 its a glorified CR1 with a better round, like the T-90A that inexcusably gets 3BM60
Exactly if T-90A is at 11.0 Chally 2s absolutely shouldn’t be any higher. Pretty much everything in UK tree is over br’d anyway but Chally 2s suffer a lot.
The T-90A is 10.7, not 11.0.
The T-90A is also probably one of the worst comparisons you could’ve picked because that’s another really poor vehicle.
Aside from that, I fully agree with you that the Challengers are all massively over-tiered. The Challenger 3 TD now no longer has anything to offer due to it’s lack of the 5s reload, lack of spall liners and lack of upgraded engine.
The Challenger 2’s could easily be 11.0 with the TES and OES possibly being 10.7 by nature of their horrendous mobility.
This really is the worst aspect of player statistics -based battle ratings.
You’ve got 11.0 vehicles like the M1A1, TKX and T-80UM, I’d struggle to explain how those are inferior to a Challenger 2 TES, meanwhile the CR2 is 11.3.
7 Likes
12 Likes
This is honestly so depressing. These people spent so much time doing gaijin’s job for them, for free only to be met with arrogant “we know better”, “too vague we don’t care for using common knowledge/estimated guess”. I’m not gonna support this greedy arrogant biased company anymore and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
1 Like
T-90A only draw back is its reverse speed it has similar gun handling to the CR2 and CR1.
Its armour is more reliable and its mobility forwards is great.
3BM60 One shots everything. consistent 7 second reload.
Timed delay fuse and LRF make for potent anti helicopter
ATGM
CR2 has reverse speed and gun handling/thermals the armour is weaker, the side shots will lead to loss of the tank, the acceleration is terrible (despite millions of reports to say they have it wrong!)
ERA/NERA that doesn’t work
A ready rack of 4 rounds at 4 - 5 seconds per shot and then drops to 7ish
No AAA mg that can actually elevate to the heights needed to hit a heli.
HESH…
A lethargic dart that does minimal post pen.
On soft stats I’m taking the T-90 every day of the week!
It’s sad the Vickers 7 is probably the best tank Britain have in the game at higher tiers.
Given these statements I’m going to assume you’ve never played the T-90A. Would I be correct in thinking that?
In order:
- T-90A has countless drawbacks, reverse speed is one of many.
- Gun handling on the T-90A is significantly worse than on a Challenger 2:
-
- 2.8°/sec vertical traverse -vs- 11°/sec
-
- 22.6°/sec horizontal -vs- 29.1°/sec
-
- -4° of gun depression -vs- -10° of gun depression.
- It’s armour is not reliable whatsoever.
- Forwards mobility is among the worst of any MBT around it’s BR, even a sluggish Challenger 2 (2E) out-accelerates the T-90A.
- 3BM-60 has no noticable increase in post-pen damage over literally any other APFSDS round at it’s BR.
- 7.1 second reload means it’s the worst and slowest reloading MBT at around it’s BR.
I have the Bhishma and have played the T-90A on a friends account.
Gun handling it doesnt feel that much slower.
Gun depression is a trait with all Russian tanks at this point like the inherrent autoloader weakness and 3 crew i saw no merit in including these.
Its also more of a strength in warthunder with a lower profile being an advantage. On most maps.
Your T-90 is in my experince more likely to tank shots. The CR2 is dead (as in combat incapable after one shot)
The T-90 like all Russian T series tanks can be destroyed with a lower plate shot.
Front plate is sketchy DM53 can bounce, turret is a no go and the driver viewpoint is a sketchy shot now.
3BM60 is a better round than L27A1.
T-90A isnt sluggish compared to the CR2! It turns faster, and accelerates faster than the CR2 not the E model.
Reload is consistent the autoloader will load with a dead loader.
T-90A isnt a great tank
CR2 isnt a great tank
maybe I’m just lucky, but my challengers quite often withstand the enemy’s shells
Because you can tolerate it when not rushing, camping and playing passively is part of British playstyle and guess what, T-90A fit most of that.
-4 vs -6 is noticeable for most of us, it mean that you need to park the tank side way to ultilize the hill where even the normal T-series expose less of it.
Better hull, it’s a no deny from me but hardly survive a shot to the face, it’s end up a repair simulator or shot to death since the neck + flat face (where no the machine gun expose).
2 edge of a knif but yeah, if your playstyle is passively, we can agree consistent reload speed is a plus
It’s accelerate slower then the T-72B, i feel something weird with that tanks, the auto driver of it is worse then T-72B/T-64B, worse reverse speed mean you can not peek and hide
But in the end, both butchered by Gaijin to full fill the gap between generation.