I’d like to remind you that the 500/800mm for the turret are armour values for the front arc, not nescesarily the turret cheeks.
This simply states that at from angles 0-20 degrees the turret will provide at least 500mm of KE protection. This includes the side of the turret, which would be exposed at the 20 degree angle.
If we look ingame, angling the turret ar 20 degrees (70 degrees AoA) we can see that the SIDE turret provides around 470-500 KE. While the turret cheeks provide around 650-700mm KE.
Therefore, arguably the turret armour is slightly underperforming on the sides at it should be 500mm all over (at least) at 20 degrees, while ingame we see 470mm KE.
If we look at the chemical protection, at 27 degrees the turret should provide at least 800mm of CE, ingame it only provides around 700. Once again, this indicates the turret is underperforming as in that arc it should be at least 800mm.
This matches with the documents which state the side turret protection should be 350mm CE, ingame it is only around 300mm at 0 degree AoA.
The 500mm (or 600 stretch) values are NOT frontal turret cheek armour values, they are armour values for the frontal 20 degree arc (27 for CE) of the turret. Therefore, they do not disprove anything about the Challenger 2’s turret armour overperforming ingame and in fact indicate it may be slightly underperforming in terms of the turret side armour.
And of course, those documents were specifications which may have changed by the time the CR2 was finished. They are not documents stating the armour values of the finalised Challenger 2, and shouldn’t be taken as such.
yeah thats what I meant in antoher comment that they never actually got that far to it. cheers though for that, wouldnt mind a little CR2 model like in the picture.
Yeah, there’s mobility. But you’re forgetting the fact that 7.1 seconds is a REALLY bad reload. Also, only 5 degrees of gun depression. DTC-10 isn’t better by enough for it to really matter. Challenger 2E has better survivability due to the spall liner and more crew. Gun elevation is about the same (both are poor).
T-90M has far better armor, I agree. As well as a good vertical gun drive. 3BM60 is about the same as DTC-10 and both aren’t that much better than L27. T-90M is slower, terrible reverse, no gun depression, long reload.
I’ll revise my statement and say the Abrams is about as good as the Challenger 2E. 24.5 vs 24 hp/t is virtually the same. You’ll probably get more of a difference out of crew skill. 2E still has the spall liner and no risk of ammo detonation in the turret. No turret ring weakspot (or at least not as bad as the Abrams), and spall liners on the turret cheeks mean it’s harder to one tap through the mantlet. M829A2 is definitely better but to be honest I’ve not noticed a huge difference between any of the top tier 120mm/125mm cannons, everywhere from L27A1 to DM53 L/55.
Nah the spall liner in the 2E is pathetic mate, also the ammos all over the hull so one shot through teh LFP which is huge and its over.
That id conced to, issue is the breach weak spots bigger xD like a tit for tat
the turret cheek spall liners stop absolutely nothing for breach shots last i chcked
The issue is the M829A2 is more a clikc and go adventure, you can afford to be more clumsy with aiming compared to the L27A1, the rounds themelves all do the same post pen apparently so.
The reload isnt much differnet once you’re past hte first four rounds on the CR2 thats the big issue with it hence why so many are saying it could be at least 15 rounds and it would help massively.
if your loaders down your up to about 12 seconds past the ready rack with expert lasts i checked.
Is when its got an extra 14mm of armour pen at an angle when its fired from a longer barrel in teh WZ1001.
Its vastly better overall in my experience with the wz1001
The CR2s are kings of gun depression, britain since the chieftains is great for it.
However the WZ1001 isnt that bad at all using it.
Think I said that no? that its better survivability wise, just not the spall liner.
My problem with the Chinese MBTs more so is regarding their implementation, they’re not completely horrible to play but they very well could be better than they are right now. There’s many things that are wrong about them and whenever you prove it wrong they’ll “not a bug” it even when given irrefutable evidence. Similar to NATO vehicles like Challenger 2 in this regard.
Properly implemented Chinese MBTs would humillate Russian tanks. Because they are the same, except faster, more agile, more advanced and more survivable.
So we can’t have that. Therefore, no spall liners and underperforming round (should be on the 620mm pen range), plus a plethora of armor issues as a cherry on top.
(Tinfoil hat moment, I know- but I am trying to find a reason why all these bugs, nerfs and inaccuracies could possibly still not have been fixed.)
I try to be as objective as possible, but I do believe that that this prejudice does exist in some way or another.
I don’t know if this is true or not but I’ve once heard that one of the devs or at least someone hired by Gaijin on the Russian forum said that “Japan can’t make good tanks” and if this is what they think, the modeling problems with the Type 10 and other Japanese vehicles is not a surprise.
We’ve also had the problem with the Chinese tech tree consultant feeding deliberate misinformation and only removed after massive backlash.
And just recently many have sent Gaijin evidence that the VT5, at the very least the turret armor is capable of stopping armor–piercing (so BR-412D equivalent) projectiles fired from the Soviet 100mm gun, this is literally something that is said by both the designer of the VT5 and the factory in charge of producing it in two separate sources. And yet Gaijin hasn’t done anything about it. Not to mention there’s clear videos of the VT5 reloading in 4 seconds and not 5.
Since this is the Chally 2 thread, well, how can I get started?
Missing LFP spall liners
Underperforming UFP armor (Should provide 600mm~ KE from the frontal arc)
Ammo layout is suspect
L27A1 performance is also suspect
TES side ERA massively underperforming
Mantlet protection is too low
Not to mention most of the advantages the Challenger 2s used to have (such as the 5 second reload) aren’t really advantages anymore, since a lot of nations now have MBTs with 5 second reloads. And yet none of the issues I’ve highlighted above are fixed and Gaijin doesn’t seem to be planning to fix them anytime soon.
Not quite an objective assessment.
On large maps in long-range firefights, the BN outperforms all 12.0 1v1
Because until the APS is exhausted, you can fire at the target without taking damage to yourself.
Now it works without any interception misfires, except for a small area on the side of engine.
Not to mention that it is the most protected tank from CAS.
Well, what I said could be an exaggeration, but if we’re looking at the UFP of an tank like the T-72B the KE effectiveness vs LOS thickness is around 1 to 1.1x region higher than LOS, which is a positive KE modifier. I find it hard to believe that the Challenger 2’s UFP only provides around 0.8-0.9~. The Challenger 2’s UFP array thickness is 330mm and while that includes air gaps/probably rubber as well, but the T-72B’s UFP also has that and the array is over 100mm thinner, which is not enough to make up for the 8 degree difference in angle.
