What the rear side plate here? Is it just an armoured plate attached? Its in line with the charge bag storage bins i think right?
1 Like
is that not VARMA? or whatever upgrade / desendant that may/may not have been used? composite screen thingy
So Gaijin still don’t accept the fact that Challenger 2 have LFP spall liners?
Bruh.
1 Like
I thought we were waiting on sources for side spall before bug reporting the lfp? Or have they actually just denied it lol. Love how only germany and russia get competently modelled spall liner as if all other countries only ever thought of putting it behind the MOST armour sections of the armour…
Is there any confirmation that this is a spall liner? I have a number of doubts:
- The Challenger 1 uses an anti-noise/anti-vibration liner.
- Object-477 published fragments of Challenger 2 technical specifications some time ago and, as far as I recall, mentioned that the liner was actually a spall liner.
Overall, I couldn’t find any information that would suggest that the Ch2 has a spall liner.
GOOD NEWS!
Challenger 2’s gearbox now appears to be correct
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/d1OZ86M9Mkau
Old:
New:
These match my report
2 Likes
Holy moly. I can add that to the dev post
Great!
The Challenger 2 is listed as an exemplar vehicle in the spall liner section on Permali’s website, who specialise in producing them for the British Army. The vehicle almost certainly features a spall liner, the anti radiation liner on the Challenger 1 is a different material.
2 Likes
Frankly, it’s not just the spall liner. The Challenger 2 may also feature ballistic armour.
Not a single source specifically about the Challenger 2, as far as I remember, has mentioned spall liner.
For example, Haynes’s book doesn’t mention a word about this in the section on survivability. How could anyone forget it?
I haven’t read all the sources, of course, but it seems to me there are no direct references.
Looks like it’s getting a slightly better early acceleration which will slow down a bit faster. And, if they haven’t changed anything else, it might have a very slightly better top speed ?
I’ve given this a test on the dev server, the mobility definetly feels better, in general the Chally 2 feels like it’s more willing to actually accelerate now where before it was quite stubborn
The top speed and reverse appear to be the same
I see. I don’t think I’ve ever understood exactly how transmissions work in game, but the fact that they changed the highest and lowest gear made me think that would have an impact on top speeds
I also thought that too to be honest, but I think they may set a seperate maximum speed limit for both
If I remember correctly they also tweak one or two other variables, like the sprocket diameter or something. They did that some time ago for the Leclerc (which ruined most of its mobility advantage over other MBTs)
forwards should still be the same 59kph/37mph
Reverse speed has increased from 23mph to 24mph
the acceleration in gear 8 fowards and R4 backwards would have been reduced a lot, but below that increased
they changed other gearing to keep the top speed the same,
if the gear ratio of the top gear got increased by 10% a ratio somewhere else got reduced by 10% to keep the same overall (usually “mainGearRatio” and “sideGearRatio”, of which both serve the same purpose so it doesnt matter what chagnes, but “sideGearRatio” is meant to simulate the final drive
The equation for top speed is this
1 Like
Ah ok thanks for the info, im kind of out of my depth with gearing stuff
Honestly the high speed acceleration still seems pretty decent, the mid range acceleration does feel noticeably better though
30mph-37mph it should be identical to current, but 25-30mph is severely reduced, as previously there was a whole gear to deal with that range, now its forced into gear 8 for that, where the engine “torque curve” doesn’t provide much torque leading to poor acceleration
I did notice it was a bit slow there, below 25mph should it be better?