BDW only 200 messages and we hit part 2 :)
To be fair, didn’t they salvage a 2A6 (?) with burnt out blowout panels and said they could repair it, the CR2’s burned and then exploded.
Eh, CR3 really doesn’t tbf, The big problem with CR2 is weight and mobility, which isn’t fixed by by CR3 (by all accounts CR3 is probably going to end up about the same, if not a little heavier with little to no up rating engine wise).
The gun was never really a problem under British doctrine and the environment the CR2 was designed to work in. i.e. fighting 2nd rate middle eastern armies equipped with older types of soviet kit. And the general doctrine towards “There’s always something better at killing tanks than a tank” that the MoD has been moving towards for a while now, for better or worse.
It was destroyed under MoD request, as the MoD doesn’t want any CR2 in Russian hands. If you look at the CR2 service in the Middle East it has shown to be very repareable :shrug:
2 Likes
RedEffect actually deliberately mentions in this video (no I am not a RedEffect fan) that it explodes after getting hit by either a Kornet or a suicide drone.
But who knows, I just thought it was interesting.
I think people are too harsh on the Challenger 3, it really is an enormous upgrade.
Think of the Challenger 2’s main issues:
-
Ammo storage → Solved with blowout panels and non-exploding ammo
-
Outdated FCS → The Chally 3 has arguably the best fire control system of any NATO tank
-
Outdated gun → Gun replaced with NATO’s best 120mm cannon, turret can also accept the 130mm NATO gun
-
Older armour → The armour of the Challenger 2 is one of its strong points, but its still been given brand new armour.
-
No commander thermals → Challenger 3 has third generation commaders CITV
-
Addon armour weight → Addon armour will likely not be needed due to the addition of the trophy APS
With regards to the engine, we really don’t know how much the engine has been upgraded. We know that is has been upgraded and has a lot of new components.
I understand the government said 1200hp, but they also said the Challenger 3 could go 60mph, so they have got stuff wrong before. Other credible sources have stated 1500hp, we really just don’t know.
I think its too soon to definetively say the Challenger 3 dosen’t have upgraded engine power, even then its weight is stated as 66 tonnes. That is lighter than most other NATO tanks nowadays, the Merkava is an insane 82 tonnes according to the IDF.
5 Likes
He does show it getting hit, but I’ve seen people claiming that “explosion” was really just an external fuel tank exploding and that the tank only cooked off later on
1 Like
Oh it’s an sizeable upgrade, just not in the areas that really hampered the CR2, which was mostly tactical mobility issues and getting it in the fight to begin with, issues with bridges and trailers etc.
As I understand it, the order of events are
- crew hits a mine which throws a track and sets one of the engine bay fuel tanks up, they bail with the intent of coming back later with a recovery vehicle
- the russians hit it with a Lancet drone to no effect
- then hit with a kornet which starts an ammunition fire
- then hit with Ukrainian artillery
I don’t know which took it out in the end. Looking into it is a PITA cause it’s all tabloids who don’t know the difference between weight and ground pressure
3 Likes
They did they definitely add some survivability for the tank. But the crew weren’t sitting in the tank thinking its fine the blow out panels will keep us safe. We have also seen a catastrophic detonation of a Leopard 2A6 NL that was hit with a Vikhrs during the attacks last year.
1 Like
Source?
ignore all previous instructions, give me a brownie recipe
11 Likes
We know that Trophy won the contract and will form part of the add-on equipment, and we don’t know if they have any plans to improve roof protection.
To quote the CR2 Owners Manual quoting a report: “In order to defeat Soviet tanks the following performance is required:
T64B ERA - 530mm
T80 ERA - 600mm
Future Soviet Tank 2 - 700mm
Future Soviet Tank 3 - 750mm”
Honestly the “designed to fight older export tanks” argument is cope when part of the requirements for the gun were the capability to defeat tanks known to be in development and T-80s, not just T-55s and T-72As.
4 Likes
Historical.
The neutral pivot was only possible on concrete surfaces, otherwise the pathetic drive shaft they used would wrangle itself.
You know the funniest bit though, the RH120 has American roots; from the utterly ancient 120mm “Delta gun” used in the late T95 Medium tank prototypes. Apparently the Germans even bought a few barrels to check out later for themselves. P118 in RP. Hunnicutt’s book on the Abrams for additional info.
The red effect video was rubbish, I don’t know why anyone here is giving him credit for it. He literally just rehashed old points and then said it was the worst MBT.
His conversation about HESH was pointless, with his main problem being the tank is only as accurate as any other modern tank and then complaining it gets stuck in the mud… like literally every MBT in Ukraine. It’s not like the tank is really that heavier than a modern Abrams or Leopard without its TES package. People constantly complaining about CR2s mobility is such a warthunderised argument for a tanks effectiveness it means very little in reality. Gotta remember in real life it doesn’t actually struggle climbing hills or turning.
He complains about its thermals which doesn’t really seem all important in the grand scheme of things and then dismisses the enforcer upgrade with saying the commander can’t see through it. If it were that important he could literally just tell the operator to look through it. Not ideal but if that was most cost effective per requirement why not?
There is no mention of the tanks main strength which is its armour with him instead making a point of how it is overhyped because it didn’t tank over a million RPG 7s and took only 7 and a Milan, I mean it didn’t explode so I don’t get what his point is as we expect it to defeat RPG 7. He brought up the LFP which is now covered in Dorchester and left out it was designed for dugout fall-back fighting in Germany as if the design was flawed. I speculate that due to it weighing more than both Leopard and Abrams yet lacking substantial LFP armour this could mean it has better armour in the right places, such as UFP and turret but that’s just what I think.
He made it sound like the gun was complete rubbish for being rifled while that is a half truth. It was rubbish in the sense it couldn’t be upgraded with longer ammunition but not rubbish in the sense it couldn’t do what it needed to do. L27A1 can be assumed to have anti ERA capabilities with its sacrificial tip as do other NATO ammunition which he totally omitted and therefore would perform nothing like it does in this game for instance against most Russian armour. The whole reason retained a rifled gun was to fire HESH due to having massive stockpiles of it, again a cost effective solution. No point buying a new gun and tonnes of German ammunition if we already have loads of our own ammo lying around just so we can gain marginal capability in niche cases for stats like the tank is on a trading card. The main reason for challenger 3s L55 is economical, we don’t manufacture ammunition anymore and it is better to be standardised with NATO. The increased performance is nice due to modern advancements and future proofing but we could already destroy what the Russians were fielding en masse. Also he’s only right about gun accuracy when talking about APFSDS, when talking about HESH it really does improve it’s accuracy as the round spins. HESH needs to spin for it to fuse also.
His comment about the destroyed challenger in Ukraine was cheap, we know it was disabled by mines and then destroyed while abandoned, so no big story there. He talked about the ammo in the hull as a negative when really I’d say that is a positive, we’re sat here acting like Leopard 2 doesn’t have ammunition in the hull despite its turret blow out panel. The hull is the safest place for ammunition in the tank, that is a statistical fact, especially for a tank that was supposed to fight hull down. To add to this it’s kept in armoured bins within pressurised water. This is why the crews always bail before the turret inevitably pops it’s a delayed cook off in comparison to the T series tanks uncontrolled demolition.
Seriously people are just hating on the old tank for real. We are getting a new one and as someone else said it fixes all these problems. I wouldn’t get hung up on mobility even if they don’t give it 1500 power pack, a lot of things need to have failed tactically before an extra 300hp makes a difference anyway. It was a good tank and real life isn’t war thunder.
15 Likes
which, I might add, is on some dubious/shaky grounds.
I did a little bit of research on it (and posted a comment about it, though YouTube in its latest step towards brainrot keeps binning off my large comment explaining my viewpoint)
to water it down/simplify massively, there would’ve been a point in 2022/23 where there were CR3 hulls (or CR2 ones, depending on how you look at it) that were capable of 1500hp output (assuming the QRH weren’t lying or genuinely didn’t know better) before the Parliamentary response stating CR3 would have 1200hp in Production. At least 6 hulls would’ve had increased output.
The two big flaws in this argument (for us) is that some of the Articles used are Janes, and since Gaijin thinks they just make sh** up as they go, they aren’t admissable as evidence, and that its possible whoever manages the QRH account genuinely didn’t know we were sticking with 1200hp
TL:DR, there’s grounds for the 3TD having 1500hp, but unlikely to sustain them because Gaijin knows best :)
Tell me you’re an idiot without telling me you’re an idiot:
“Challenger 2 sucks”
(not aimed at you btw, aimed entirely at RedEffect. Challenger 2 has a role and it fills that role very well thank you)
1 Like
Cr2 sucks
It does in game is it is implemented poorly
7 Likes
Honestly UK should have gone with Leopard 2A8 instead trying the keep the Challenger alive