Sorry to bother you yet again @Smin1080p_WT , but concerning these reports:
I think the developers will find the current ready rack for the Challenger 2s is quite accurate:
From the UK MoD. CP DS-T obviously just being training APFSDS:
And an additional source for fun. ‘Flèche’ meaning ‘arrow projectile’ or ‘APFSDS’:
Hope you’re ready for some Leclerc Nerfs.
ho so thats why it takes so long to fill that ready charge bin. the loader has to get out of the tank, run back to camp and bring 4 more charges.
yea it makes sense
That would account for the 26 seconds - it all makes sense now.
also thank you for bringing that source up again, maybe you can also allert smin how good the armored charge bins are compared to what we have in game.
Russia yet to capture an intact CR2 maybe that changes…
I mean it could happen, but there are very few (14 were send initially) with claims of up to 4 being already destroyed so the probability is quite low
The developers’ incompetence regarding certain nations is becoming increasingly clear. I don’t know if it’s intentional, or because they already did things wrong from the start and don’t want to waste time on nations that don’t have as much at stake, or if it’s an obsession with incorrectly pruning the armor of many NATO tanks.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gpuxRxnCZtm7
Let’s start with the laughs.
Interestingly, the Challenger mk3 and the 2 (2F) have NERA armor (it’s not lost with the first shot), while the 2 OES has ERA armor (it’s lost upon impact). Here’s a curious thing: replacing NERA armor with ERA armor provides exactly the same protection, even though the Challenger 2 OES is more modern than the other two, which logically means it should have better protection.
Now a question, why is the Challenger 2 OES armor inferior to that of the TES when they are the same ERA armor? In fact, the OES is a version with minor improvements over the TES.
Another question, when are they going to fix the Romor A armor resistance? This report is already a year old.
And last question, is it possible that these parts are actually made of structural steel? Regarding the front of the chassis, I wouldn’t completely rule it out because it seems to be something related to the added armor on the front of the hull, like some kind of support, although I still find it strange that it’s not RHA. In the case of the sides of the turret, it does seem very strange to me; they seem more like ERA armor plates than structural steel.
I do wonder the fact they have been destroyed completely in every case if Ukraine are when they abandon them scuttling the tank?
Well that certainly could be one reason, but another reason is just the ammo storage of Cr2. It’s not that hard for the ammunition to catch fire once the tank is penetrated and destroy the entire tank.
Abandoned tanks are generally also destroyed by both sides to deny recovery, so it hasn’t necessarily be the crew that “scuttle” them but could also be the Russians that just want to deny a chance of recovery and repair
Every Challenger 2 we’ve seen has been stationary when it was destroyed, scuttling is certainly a possibility.
The Challenger 2 clearly has a ammo storage issue though, hence why I’m so glad the Challenger 3 fixes it with “inert” ammo and blowout panels.
there was a Ukrainian Challenger 2 crew that claimed they got hit by ‘4 drones’ (I believe is what they said) before they had to retreat in an interview, and the Challenger 2’s donated have had their internal Chobham/Dorchester removed AFAIK, same as the abrams, meaning they are watered down versions of Challenger 2.
impossible
Challenger2 F/OES/TES wrong hull addition amour // Gaijin.net // Issues
Challenger 2 mantlet lack of RHA // Gaijin.net // Issues
challenger 2 hull spall liner missing // Gaijin.net // Issues
Gaijin’s comment to this being reported was “it’s different ERA”
varma 1 still missing its historical 80mm against ke gg
when the chassis cant handle the torque
