I would love to see the documents that denote such drastic weight changes.
1 Like
They should move the challenger to the bluewater fleet. It’s basically the same weight as a battleship now.
9 Likes
And what’s up with the Challenger 1 neutral pivots?
How is it so catastrophically terrible?
They were always like that. Cr2 was even worse, but they tweaked its gearbox so now it is bearable.
Ha ha what a comment!
I like how the engine is red lined and the tank barely crawls forward…Its like the transmission and the engine aren’t connected
Oh so Challengers can get massive mobility nerf with no proof but armor buffs based on multiple sources and common sense would be too much ? clown company
5 Likes
It’s had what, 2 mobility nerfs since the “audit”, and not a sign of a drop in BR at least.
It shows the care and effort they put into the prior audit if they could have missed these huge weight increases. Twice.
All that extra armour silly, now the side plates offer protection up to 7mm mg!
The Chally 2’s straight line acceleration honestly isn’t that bad considering their weight
The main issue is that they lose all their speed as soon as they turn even a little but and they dont even turn quickly like the Abrams, T80, Type 10
So I wanted to test if my turning speed loss theory was true, so I did some tests in the test drive.
Essentially what I did was:
-
Drive to 20mph on road.
-
Do a 90 degree turn while applying forward power.
-
Record the speed after doing the 90 degree turn.
-
Calculate the % of speed lost in a 90 degree turn.
So thats my findings, I did a variety of tanks to compare.
We can see that the Challengers lose MUCH more speed in a turn than any other tank tested, the OES loses a staggering 80% of its speed.
The M1A1 weighs around the same as the CR3TD, yet only loses 50% of its speed in the turn while the CR3TD lost 75% of its speed, so this is not just about weight.
We know its not just about horsepower to ton as the Leopard 1A1 (similar hp/ton) lost only 50% of its speed in the turn instead of 75% of the CR3TD.
The Challenger Mk.3 DS loses a lot less speed than the CR3TD despite having the same HP and actually being heavier, it makes no logical sense.
So they are clearly underperforming a lot in terms of how much speed they lose in turns, I could potentially bug report this, it would take a while though so I’d like to see what everyone else thinks.
6 Likes
4 Likes
This thread has not even smelt a buff in the past three+ years
6 Likes
ASPRO-HMT CE buff would be huge but looks like no one cares about Challengers anymore.
Honestly the TES and OES should be lower than the 2F simply because they’re heavier with no benefits. Other than the .50 cal which the 2F can get anyway…
Battleships have more power to weight probably
Soo the TES has at least 2x thicker blocks than the 2F yet it result only in measly 100mm more of CE ? What an insult. That is so obviously wrong it’s unbelievable how biased and ignorant gaijin is.
Edit: Actually now looking at it, the OES has THE SAME 400MM CE as the 2F while being so much thicker. How the hell it possible?
Honestly if you just plugged the void in the breech added regenerative steering to the game and gave charm 3 its anti ERA effect it would be enough. We’re sat here thinking Russian armour is any good in reality btw.
As far as I’m concerned I still think CR1 mk2 has the current CR2s 500mm KE hull and CR2s hull is in fact better in real life with Dorchester. Even more hilarious in places is that CR1 has a better breech in some places than CR2s.
2 Likes
The devs have said that the OES has the 500mm CE protection. Not updated in the x-ray.
Devs are drunk and can’t even read. The report said it should stop MODERN ATGMs like 1200mm kornets