Perhaps, but I would still like the choice to have it, and given the base CR2 has it in the files and is simply disabled, it shouldnt cost them much effort to re-enable it and add it to some of the others (2F, TES and OES)
A couple of points on this:
-
If a bag charge is burning inside the tank then anyone inside that tank will be dead (or incapacitated) in a matter of seconds, so it really doesn’t matter whether it burns or explodes in game. IRL the idea was that if the charge burned rather than exploded it would give the crew a limited chance to escape.
-
That was only true of APDS and HESH charges. It was found in trials that if the L8 charge (used for the L23A1 APFSDS) was unstable and if penetrated in any way it was liable to explode instantly leading to “the total disintegration of the vehicle”. Later APFSDS charges for CHARM 1 & 3 were designed to be less vulnerable than L8, but it was still acknowledged that if either of them suffered a direct hit from a penetrator they could be expected to violently detonate.
The glycol charge bins were discontinued long before Challenger 2 entered service, because they were found to be completely ineffective at protecting APFSDS charges (see above). They were replaced with Armoured Charge Bins (ACBs); the logic being that if the charge is penetrated it will explode glycol or not. Therefore, the best thing to do is replace the glycol with armour to try and reduce the risk of them being penetrated.
All Challenger 1 Mk.3s and Challenger 2s were built with ACBs. In addition some Challenger 1 Mk.2s were retrofitted with ACBs.
4 Likes
My understanding is the current traverse rate is the speed at which at even a tiny bit lower, the unit would be removed for servicing, i.e the absolute bare minimum acceptable speed.
Might be wrong though and for all I know the same absolute minimum value is used for all tanks in game.
I think its correct. I’ve got the Haynes book at least and it matches the in game stats.
From what I’ve seen the turret traverse is document accurate, but turret traverse is something that can be changed quite easily and is often limited for safety/maintenance reasons.
Hopefully the Challenger 3 P gets better traverse/elevation though.
I just find it annoying that crew skills affects turret rotation speed on tanks where crew skill shouldnt really be relevant. With one that is hand cranked, it makes sense, but on something like the CR2, its a tad annoying,
4 Likes
100% and the accuracy of laser ranging, such a stupid gameplay decision.
That and if your crew skill isnt good enough the map markers of spotted tanks are not where the tank is.
Why is my crew being impacted by this stupid mechanic?
Let’s put it this way. The Chally 2 turret is based on the Vickers Mk.7/2. In game the Chally 2 has max traverse of 31°/s which is the same as the Mk.3
The Vickers in game has a traverse speed of 36°/s and Mr 06 has said it should be 40°/s. Either way you look at it the Chally should be closer to 36°/s
3 Likes
This could somewhat be delt with if we got L27 with the anti ERA tip but I don’t know much about that but maybe it could make it better against WT Relikt
Cause gaijin dont use the equation in its whole form.
There was an old forum post about how most tanks pen are lower than should be due to this.
Hell all the short 90s for the US have lower pen than they should.
I mean while true enoughz ive watchef T72As take out cr2s through the frontal arc, not lfp at about 400 meters, while the l27a1 bounced off 😂 2bm22 could not penetrate cr1, as stated by the brigadier in the tank chats reloaded on cr1.
So why tf can it go through a cr2 with ease.
If ye had to aim sure. Hut the armour is absolutely laughable
2 Likes
Yes ive noticed the same.
We ask for 2 things. Fix what we have or add more vehicle to help our lineup. Gaijin does neither,
2 Likes
yeah they just add stuff which doesn’t work xD CR3 TD, what was the time gap between the CR2 E and CR3 TD? cause it felt like some time had passed IMO.
The CR2 ARmour generally needs buffed
1 Like
Did we ever come to a conclusion on if the CR2 has a turret basket?
I imagine its model may be getting updated this update
No. It does not have a basket, as it would make taking charges out of the bins impossible.
3 Likes
Well thats some good news at least
2 Likes
That is a Cr1, but the principle is the same.
As for a connecting part, here it is
5 Likes
Thats a challenger 1. It says restricted too, are u sure ur allowed to post that?
I can repost if it is (jk). Also the second person from the right looks like he’s doing something sus
I know it’s challenger 1, just showing the general setup. Not sure why it was removed, that document has been publicly available on scribd for 15 years now, and that specific page has been posted before on these forums with no issue.
It is the users responsibility to provide classification, including the cover of the document to find out whether it is appropriate or not
1 Like