Poor engineering obviously
but its not? its just portrayed incorrectly. you could make it have no weight and insane armour because its a game; but that wouldn’t make logical sense. more weight usually = thicker armour. unless we start to get the weight values of every single item in the vehicle, we have to assume that most of that weight is frontal facing armour.
1 Like
more weight usually = thicker armour
we have to assume that most of that weight is frontal facing armour.
Why do we have to assume anything to do with this exactly? Because you would like to assume that or because of a more credible reason?
give me a more credible reason that a tank that weight 20 tons more than things around it has worse armour other than “hur dur bad engineering”
edit: bad engineering doesnt magically summon 20 invisible tons of weight.
1 Like
You don’t add 20 tonnes of weight and see no advantage.
The gun hasn’t changed, the ammo is the same, the engine is the same.
If 20 tons of armour gives you 30mm additional protection you don’t add it.
1 Like
Part 2 Lets go,
Let us be reminded of some of the travesties of the Challengers 2 by using low effort MS Paint Diagrams.
Mantlet Protection
Mantlet Protection Part 2
Challenger 2 STANAG Rating
TES Block Protection
Why no more protection, then 30mm KE.
Challenger 2 Mobility
17 Likes
the worst thing is that, i could justify and accept it being slow in game if it had the armour to substitute for its lack of speed. but it just doesn’t have that speed or armour.
5 Likes
Like when the 2F dropped yes it was slow but it tanked shots and its ERA protected it from Russian helis…But we couldn’t have that
3 Likes
Well you see I don’t know where the weight is allocated, and neither do you. So you can’t just “assume” that weight is wherever it suits you best.
assuming its a “tank” and we are following “tank” construction guidelines; most of the armour would be on the front, therefore meaning the front is heaviest.
2 Likes
While Im sure you are missing more bug reports, here is one at least.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/G4fTz108tdYo
1 Like
Do you have the construction guidelines and schematics for the challenger 2?
Does armour slot through these green bits or is it space for electronics for the TOGS to slot through?
It’s just empty space essentially. Coax passes through it. TOGS is mounted on the top and not a part of this.
I’m not talking about the part where the coax passes through or the standard sight on the other sides, I’m specifically talking about the larger areas around the gun.
Like most if not all tanks that have a barrel referencing sensors those electronics will pass through the mantlet.
I just answered your question for you.
This is what is filled by the rotor front plate locks (i forgot how to call it, by brain brains not). Just like here, but whover made it did not included a hole for trunnion pins.
3 Likes
Gaijin planning to buff T-64,T-72,T-80 rotation speed next update I swear they are just trolling now. This cant be coincidental
1 Like
no, but i have common sense. what you are saying is:
“because you don’t have the schematics for cr2, you cant say that the rear armour isn’t stronger than the front.”
correct, i can’t say it isn’t. but common sense and historical tank design says that, strongest armour is on the front; so if ANY weight is added anywhere, it would be there, or the sides. the sides were protected by ERA skirts, but we arn’t talking about THAT weight. we are talking about its weight without ERA, which is still tonnes heavier than other things with similar side armour; so if its tons heavier and the side armour is supposedly similar, where is that weight going if not the front?
2 Likes