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.
Personally the BN is my favourite Chally 2 ingame and I think its very competitive.
Is it the best MBT in the game? no, but its certainly not the worst 12.0.
I’d take it over:
Any Ariete
Leo2A5/2A6
Merkava Mk.4
Maybe the T90M too I cannot stand the idea of 4kph reverse at top tier
Give it its realistic ready rack and hull spall liners, it should be fine.
However, Im mostly waiting for the later Challenger 3 prototypes to come which actually bring some impressive hull armour to the Challenger series. Sure they (might be) kinda slow, but I dont mind that.
I just wish the Ch2 would have a larger readyrack, the BN would be almost perfect (given its more defensive niche) with more than 4 rounds of its high rate of fire.
The APS is very fun when you get some heli player trying to kill you and they cant do anything.
