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

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
1717

For four rounds. then its either 6 seconds aced or just over it.
With expert my CR2 past the ready racks over 7 seconds.

Gen one on the thermals, commander has 2nd gen I believe, but optics isnt just thermals its also magnification believe theyre similar in that regard, the 2E is far better than the 2a5 and 2a6 for magnification.

Id rather lose the LWS for DM53 especially the 2a6 as its the highest penning shell at top tier.

A quite niche feature that has saved me a handful of times.
id rather lose all of those for the over all better performance of the Leopard 2a5/6

Only on the gunners sight, commander has gen 2 or 3, both are about the same in game.

Hardly, they have more effective turret armour, they also don’t have as stupidely big a breach shot (all tanks have one)

The Reload is hardly anything to shout about, half the comments are about how its incredibly insufficient for the tanks to only have a 4 round ready rack, meaning you get only four rounds faster than a 2a5/6 then are on par or arguably worse.

As well as this, the ammo layout on the CR2s is pretty damn brutal for if a tank flanks or gets a hull shot.

The CR2’s are some of my favourite tanks in the world, behind colddwar gear like chieftains etc. In game they just aren’t it man .

I prefer my 2a5/6 at range than the CR2 BN, the L27A1 is far too anemic for the BR compared to the Dm53.

It’s one of, there are other tanks with APS which works fine against cas.
The APS on the BN is so highly regarded as it works against ground rounds etc.

Im sorry but any cas plane is a threat to all tanks, not just KH38 carriers.
I’ve died more to the damn rafale in my BN than su30 or SU34.

Depends if you’re in a position to get dunked on by cas like that regardless of the tank the CAS will win.

the leopards are better overall for GRB, whether you like the CR2 or not.

1719

It’s 7-8 seconds for the CR2. The ready rack is too small and you will average 2 shots per target so the Leo takes the cake as it also has higher damage rounds

Not sure about CR2E optics but the Leo 2A6 and A7 have some of the best optics (zoom wise) at top tier, 3.0x - 12.0x zoom is very good

Only on the L/55 guns as they have better pen and velocity

It helps but with only 4 charges it is not very long lasting

You can live with Gen 1 thermals but I prefer the higher zoom

The Russians have a second launcher on the top of the T14 turret that they make out to intercept Air to Surface weapons, I don’t know if this is true but it does look similar to Trophy so it could be possible

1720

Could we get L28 on the BN? If so, how much better is it than L27A1, if not, :(

1721

Not much better. Maybe. We don’t know. It’s tungsten anyway instead of Uranium so it’s going to be worse.

1 Like
1722

I’m just looking for ways to make the CR2s more competitive

1723

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like
1724

I want to note that I’m not saying that Leo is worse than Cr.2. The moment I mentioned is a complex of factors. which allow me not to suffer when meeting Leo at a distance, of course in my case. The opportunity to fire 4 unpunished shots at it, and starting from the second, due to reloading, the initiative will be on our side, this is something that no tank in the game can afford.

Naturally, this does not negate all the well-known advantages of Leo. But it seems that many Cr.2 players tend to ignore the strong positive aspects of their units, focusing on the negative ones.
This naturally has an impact on a comprehensive objective assessment of british top MBTs.

P.s. I would like the APS to recharge faster then 1.30 min for 4 charges.

1 Like
1725

Exactly my point man it’s a joke that hes saying the Fire rate of the CR2 is better when overall for a sustained fire rate the leopard trumps it.

The CR2E has 2x -12x I believe or 2x- 10x.
the 2a5 and 2a6 have great optics (ive yet to get the 2a7)

Even the L/44 caliber guns the DM53 is substantially better than the L27A1 , which I still do prefer to lose the APS for.

Especially if :
A- CAS is firing at you
B- Any form of ATGM carrier.
C- MBTs

the four charges disappears fast in that case.

Id definitely prefer gen 1 thermals, Dm53, more mobility, and 2nd gen commanders optics over the BN

Because naturally the strong positives are on one tank, that is its APS

the CR2 platforms are substantially worse than the leopards. the APS is handy to have sure, but its circumstantial as hell for it to be effective reliably.

1726

The Leos for example fix multiple problems at a time with each upgrade but only one for the Challengers (I mean all of them, even the A30) which Gaijin do intentionally. I would love to have a Type 90 or Type 10 sort of tank in the British tree for that reason, they have all they things I love and find work the best; good quality optics with high zoom, fast reload, good shells, .50 cal, very high top speed and acceleration and all of these it feels like Britain is not going to have them, at least not in one package

1727

Been wondering the past few days; why did British tank designers go the way they did with Cold War MBTs? And why didn’t they make the tank that became the CR2 fast, nimble, fast firing and with a better pair of main sights? For example, the Type 90 is the complete opposite of the CR2, it has less armour; fast autoloader; high zoom sights; low weight; better engine for its size and a reduced crew but the CR1 and 2 both have large amounts of strong armour; lower zoom optics; 4 man crew; very high weight; weak engine for its size and a fastish reload but the loader can tire over time

1728

The design philosophy was “sit tight, shoot first, shoot accurately and take the hit if you have to”

It explains the strong turret armour, excellent fire control and excellent guns. Bunker up and blunt the hoards of soviet tanks pouring towards you while buying time for the counter attack or tactical nuclear weapons to be deployed to shut down the fulda gap.

1 Like
1729

Bovington has a good history for the Challenger 2, covers some of the core design points for it

2 Likes
1730

Japanese tanks are lightly armoured because of the terrain they are required to operate in.
British tried the cruiser tank in WW2 then in the Cold war they made the decision to prioritise fire power and first hit probability.
With the Cold war and the terrain in Western Germany. A tank that could move fast was not as important as a tank that could engage and destroy other tanks before they could make a shot.

Soviet armour was so numerous and you were inevitably going to have to be able to take a hit. Soviet commanders feared/respected the Cheiftain and that is why they put the brand new T-64 series tanks to face them, confident the T-62s and T-55s would deal with M-60s and Leopard 1s.

This mindset never left Britain which is why even now with CR3 they are prioritising armour, firepower and first hit potential.

1 Like
1731

more nimple ATGM rats please

1732

I can understand the Chieftain to the CR2 but why still that strategy in this day and age? Russia is less of a threat via land invasion and a fast firing tank with high levels of mobility (like the Type 10) would be beneficial and likely cheaper in the long run considering that Britain wants tanks but won’t buy them or parts for them

1733

Quite a number of British tank forces(if I remember correctly, about half of them) are deployed in Germany and Eastern Eruope. Nothing changed on their strategy against Russia compared to Cold War against USSR.

1734

It’s cheaper to reuse an existing design CR3 is essentially a CR2 upgrade. It offers no new change in design ethos. I put this down to cost, export market potential, doctrine and combat efficacy. Britain cant and wont compete with the US or Germany in the export market we have even fallen behind nations like South Korea. CR2 has largely performed well when deployed, or certainly good enough this is down to the excellent training of UK tank crews. We take so long to adapt and adjust to new technologies you could see an argument for Britain to not have an MBT and focus instead on mobile systems to support our NATO partners.

What Britain should be doing is driving and developing the 130-140mm tank programme. CR3 will only bring us up to the same level as our allies. Albeit with a superior FCS and optical systems. We could see in the next 5-10 years that the 120mm is no longer suffucient and instead of being a nation driving innovation we will again be behind out French/German and US allies.

1735

To late on that front as well.
Germany already offficialy started development of the 2AX with a 130mm as an in between vehicle until the MGCS is finished.

Superior fcs and sight systemm ehhh questionable but whatever

1736

Why not upgrade the CR2 into something like the Type 10 which still has a 3.5 second reload and with how low the British military is getting with new recruits, they could do with an autoloader that replaces a crew member, yes there is increased stress but that is already there with so few people joining

1737

The issues with autoloaders is fewer crew, this makes tasks when the tank is out of combat dependant on additional resources. Britain have always liked a 4 man crew.
When the tank is stood down 4 crew members can each contribute to the maintenance and security detail for the tank.

Leclerc as an example requires engineering crews to be available to assist when completing maintenance as the tank only operates with 3 crew members.

In combat though the autolaoder and Leclerc are superior/equal to CR2 it’s the tasks out of combat