I know. This is the MoD we’re talking about. Stupid sh*t has been known to happen and continues to happen. (Though I hope it really isn’t ROMOR-A, I think at the very least I’d throw something at Whitehall. Though it’d have to be a fairly big something)
There was a recent picture from Ukraine showing the turret cheek array consists of spaced “plates” roughly the same thickness and spacing seen in that photo of the side block. (At least the first and second plate are visible)
Not entirely sure what the plates are but I doubt they’re RHA as they all have those bolts(?) that have been seen on the mantlet, running through them in a grid pattern.
That side block seems to be similar construction to the turret array at least (Albeit with only 2 plates), with “plates” spaced apart and bolts running through them, then a thin metal cover over everything(which has been removed in this photo).
It was all a ruse, it turns out spaced armour has always been the best armour. You have found out the truth and now shall be culled along with the rest of us who know.
Perhaps they were comparing it to the Leopard 2’s armour without the add-ons, which makes it more believeable
Do we know which exact variants were included in the trails which the CR2 was compared against?
I’ve seen the base M1A1 and Leopard 2A4 mentioned in documents, and if those were the comparison models, I personally wouldn’t be particularly impressed if a mid '90s Challenger 2 boasted superior protection to those.
I think this is the case, anyone know when this document was made?
Walked past this van today, I think the universe is trying to tell me not to play the Chally 2
15 Likes
Thats actually quite funny, thats got to be custom.
Why doesn’t the Challenger 2 use a transverse power pack? On the one hand, it can shorten the length of the vehicle body, and on the other hand, it can free up the space to use the longitudinal power pack to increase the thickness of the armor.
Probably because saving interior space was not a priority. Longitudinal engines also have the advantage that they are easier to access/maintain and have better weight distribution.
those BR changes are depressing…
1 Like
Look at it this way: at least they didn’t move the TD
What are they even trying to decompress with these BR changes? 9.0-9.3
On another note, all the more reasons to not play the Challengers.
1 Like
Cheiftain mk10 getting moved up too…The 3 of us who play it must have been doing a bloody good job!
7 Likes
Time to go death farm and lower its statistics.
4 Likes
so challenger 3 is untouched? or is it just forgotten
1 Like
They didnt give the reload buff despite using the exact same gun, ammo and load procedures of its contemporaries
1 Like
Thats true, but as a end of line vehicle and you are 0.3 br lower is just amusing
The fact they felt the need to move the TES up to 11.7 is actually crazy
The CR2/F/TES would all be fine at 11.3, they are already not that good at 11.3
2 Likes
