Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion (Part 1)

You know what I’d love?

I’d love to sit down with the person who makes these decisions RE armour and stuff, and ask them exactly what they think the extra weight on the TES is. Do they think we’re hauling around lead bricks for shits and giglges?

Gaijin seem to have an enoumous blind spot for common sense. The following seems self-evident to me :

  • The extra weight on the TES is armour, therefore it follows that the extra armour is added for a reason and not just for a laugh, therefore what we have is horribly underperforming.

  • The british engineers when designing the ch2 turret didnt’ decide to make it well protected to the sides and leave a giant, gaping hole in the armour in the middle. It doesnt’ pass the smell test and makes zero sense and yet, they seemt to think the engineers were drooling idiots.

At some point, gaijin are going to have to go “well, we can’t prove this is the case, however it makes no sense for it not to be the case, therefore we will use an educated guess”, rather than leaving a giant fucking hole in the middle of the turret.

This rant is coming from finally trying to spade the TES. Jesus christ, quite how anyone can look at this tank and go “this will sell well as a premium!” is beyond me.

I got into this a bit with smim around the ch3 turret spall liners. Gaijin’s position is, quite frankly, stupid and unsustainable. If that thing ever entered combat, it would have had spall liners and add-on armour. Putting a tech-demo vehicle in game, in the tech demo state is just stubborn and stinks of double standards when you have the yak-141 with it’s IRST.

It’s a very similar thing with the M1 and it’s DU inserts. I mean, christ alive, my understanding is that ukraine is getting brand new m1 tanks because they are getting the ones without DU liners. This means, the standard m1whatever has DU liners as otherwise they would have received US army tanks which are in storage. Common sensed and logic, it’s not difficult really.

7 Likes


When is this damn armor going to be fixed? Main armor doesn’t protect crew and explosive ammo.
The 2S38 allows Gaijin to see the perfect British fireworks show

1
2
3

3 Likes

Challenger 3 needs DM73, or, at very least, the DM63A1 it was showcased with…

Otherwise, each and every single mantlet shot will be a tank kill via ammorack! You literally hit its first order ammorack via mantlet impact!

4 Likes

well, i’ve tagged @Smin1080p so hopefully he will read this thread on monday and give us an update on how the armor changes are going.

Hello

As explained here, the developers are reviewing armour reports in detailed. Until these reviews have taken place, we wont have any new news to report at this moment in time.

“You’ve brought to our attention a number of issues with the British Challenger 2 tanks (and now also the Challenger 3). We’re currently in the process of checking and rechecking your reports. Some of these have already been accepted and we’ll be starting work on them soon, and in addition to this some changes have already been made, which you’ll be able to see after the update. However, some of these reported issues are still quite contentious, and as such we’re not in a position to give a completely thorough reply just yet. We plan to publish a more comprehensive response where we will discuss these reports and changes to the Challenger 2 variants in detail, but this will come after the update when we’ve had time to thoroughly analyze everything.”

3 Likes

Have we got any sort of rough timescale on when the reviews will be complete and implemented?

1 Like

no

7 Likes

Id expect a message in the new years tbh, id very surprised if they give us a solid answer before christmas

1 Like

You’ve brought to our attention a number of issues with the British Challenger 2 tanks (and now also the Challenger 3).

Issues which have been LONG-RUNNING since CR2 was added. What, Gaijin only just decides to have a look at them now or was it because a ruckus was kicked up?

We’re currently in the process of checking and rechecking your reports. Some of these have already been accepted and we’ll be starting work on them soon, and in addition to this some changes have already been made, which you’ll be able to see after the update.

See above. These are in many cases not new issues. You could at least fix them before selling a product for real money (OES) - wilfully pushing out an unfinished product despite have plenty of evidence to show otherwise.

However, some of these reported issues are still quite contentious, and as such we’re not in a position to give a completely thorough reply just yet.

Contentious according to whom? The dev’s blinkered views that British AFV technology apparently stopped in 1979? The latest edition of Pravda?

We plan to publish a more comprehensive response where we will discuss these reports and changes to the Challenger 2 variants in detail, but this will come after the update when we’ve had time to thoroughly analyze everything.”

Given how broken this entire update is - a rushed and unfinished mess - I suspect this will take a loooooooooong time. Totally self-inflicted by the way; nobody forces Gaijin to release an update by X or Y date.

Nothing personal @Smin1080p but your employers have well and truly outdone themselves in hacking off a good chunk of the playerbase without good reason.

You had to know this whole update would go down like a lead balloon with the British, the Germans, the Americans, the Chinese…pretty much everyone other than Russia mains. Oddly enough there isn’t anything wrong with any of their additions - they work quite nicely thank you very much…

14 Likes

Deleted because reply decided not to work

So what you’re saying in a very well coded and complex way is “we’ve only just noticed how irritated British players are and have been since Challenger 2 was introduced but can’t be arsed to use all the documentation (which both explicitly or heavily implies certain standards of protection, traverse time, etc etc) given to us to improve it.”

Take the TES, for example. the ASPRO HMT armour packs should resist 25mm fire at a range of 500m or greater. Yet somehow that’s been construed to mean it gives only 25mm of actual armour… and the CE protection is a whole lot worse. Admittedly not my area of expertise but a guess would say it should give a fair bit more than 400mm of CE protection… remember this is a Tech Demonstrator from late 2000s and 2010s…

Forgive me but it just sounds as if the Developers don’t give a toss. Not until the money becomes concerned anyway. Notice how the response has only come when the OES, a near enough £50-60 premium is released… convenient?

9 Likes

I find it interesting how the OES is a golden lion premium, while the ‘Click Bait’ is a pack vehicle.

It doesn’t make any sense to me, unless it has something to do with packs being easier to refund.

But yeah, I love how they’re like “wait, you guys are upset about the challenger 2?!”.

2 Likes

But the Win rates said you guys were loving it!!!

I thought British WRs in Ground were some of the worst out there.

iirc theyre still like 50% or greater so

ah yes hit with that Brit Main supremacy again.

1 Like

The reason I say it, is with the GL you’re buying the coins, then using the in-game currency to buy the vehicles, so it adds a layer between buyiing a pack on the store. It’s a discreet product rather than just golden lions.

It’s probably utter rubbish, but I cannot think of another reason for the life of me.

1 Like

Im surprised no one has made this skin yet

4 Likes

They have. WT Live // Camouflage by TonyTheJackal

2 Likes