well i cant find any reliable sources of my own so its safe to say its either steel or unknown so steel xD
again tho, ww2 mediums can take out teh top tier of britain easily which is quite stupid tbh
That’s the way the tank was designed unfortunately.
3 Likes
Yeah i got the 3TD finally, im goign back to my chieftains xD
1 Like
The thing is even WW2 tank guns are quite powerful, a lot of modern tanks can be destroyed by hits to the LFP by tank guns and AT weapons. Abrams and Leopard are exceptions but even they can be destroyed by modern tank guns to the lower plate. You have to remember that tank armour either stops the round or fails, if it can’t stop the round there is no point of heavy armour and you have wasted the weight when you could have reinforced the turret or another area.
When you factor in the tactics used in deployments of Challenger they play around the LFP being a weak spot firing behind cover and using their theatre entry standard kit. For all intents and purposes there is not really a reason to think that the armour was much upgraded over the chieftains for the LFP as there is no Chobham armour.
Oh i know the old guns are still powerful, a 76mm round is still a 76mm round just cause its off an old tank doesnt change that ( yes im aware it makes the difference comparitively to modern 76mm rounds i mean in teh context of it hitting a weak point).
I just did genuinely think they would of focused on having a bit more armour to it.
However as you stated they dont go into perations without the armour packages thus somewhat mitigating the LFP weakness.
TBH For warthunder im at the point id prefer to see more additions like the 70s and 80s models of tanks, chieftain upgrades, various pattons etc. over just more top tier. top tier is a right headache especially seeing as were nearly at current modern equipment e.g challanger 3 TD for example ( i know were missing a lot of stuff from the early 2000s and what not for ground), it has become increasingly difficult for both us the players, and bug reports, to make effective, accurate bug reports, and its difficutl as well for gaijin to actually not only get licenses for all this, but to accurately portray the vehicles without divulging secrete military equipment.
This image is from my latest bug report about the ERA cages being a total mess. The TES kits are probably far underperforming in the game tbh. The steel backplate isn’t even modelled for it.
7 Likes
WW2 guns can take out the Chally 2 from the front (without adons)
However, they can also take out the:
- M1 Abrams
- Leclerc
- Ariete
- Type 10
- VT4
- ZTZ99
- etc…
Frontally, all you need is over around 150mm of pen with APHE. The Challenger is not exclusive in having a weak lower front plate, it is an intended design feature of many vehicles.
The main issue is the the addon armour for the Challenger 2 (and Chally 1) underperforms a lot
4 Likes
can kill it with sub 150mm pen APHE
No please don’t give me flashbacks of the ASPRO HMT
2 Likes
Honestly I’d rather see the CR2s drop down to 11.3 as they are not really top tier material. Weakest round at top tier, small ready rack, poor mobility and armour. The CR2E, BN & CR3TD can remain where they are, but the base CR2, 2F, TES and OES can go down .3 BR at the moment. Until they at least fix some things on it.
1 Like
isnt this the exact reason why its classified as variable thickness armor?
I think you may be right actually, it is strange that it only lists it as variable thickness armour for Challenger 1 mk3. Every other tank with the kit just lists it as 10mm.
Effective thickness is listed as 13mm so I think the 30mm plate isn’t actually modelled. If I’m eyeballing it right, there should be around 40mm of armour there if you take the 10mm value as a base and then add that 30mm plate in front of it.
It could be more so that the Challenger 2s lack the variable thickness modifier actually. It’s hard to tell what it actually means though.
This piece is called turret_08_top_dm in game files, does seem that the CR2 is not modelled as variable thickness, but the part is correct on the CRIII.
CRIII
CR2
Heres a clearer picture of the armour model:
Roughly 87mm LoS on the thicker section:
Thanks for clearing that up. Why can’t they just copy and paste these things over without making them different every time? It would create far fewer bugs. Gotta fight for every mm you can get for that LFP, every mm is another autocannon death prevented lol.
The visual 3D model for CR1s kit is still wrong regardless. It is too small.
1 Like
The vehicle that was hit was pre-2H and fitted with ERA as in 2E standard. It was hit by an RPG-29 (tandem) but the driver was only injured.
Besides, this is (according to the game) just hollow for no reason
1 Like
I mean there is driving controls etc as well.
But genuinely being able to kill a challanger 1/2 frontally with a 2.7 tank is bonkers, its LFP is absolutely massive
It’s more of a war thunder crew’s modelling problem. There are already full of driving equipment on the lower hull of challenger 1 and 2.
7 Likes
Chieftain and Challengers LFP aren’t designed to defend against cannon calibre kinetic rounds nor chemical munitions. The ERA TES kit to my knowledge counters RPG 7 but not tandem warheads, the RPG 29 still penetrated, I think it was due to the angle of which it was fired that the driver lost only his toe.
The Dorchester 2F package surely counters tandem warheads as it was introduced in 2006 in response to the RPG 29 incident. It probably also counters kinetic rounds, to what degree it is hard to say but it most likely underperforms in war thunder.
1 Like
The driver was likely not killed (I believe he lost his foot) because in real life the lower front plate features spall liners.
This has been bug reported and accepted, but 8 months later gaijin has still not added it.
As far as I’m aware, the lower front plate is just 70mm of steel. Hence why all Challenger 2’s entering combat have additional armour added there.
The driver in question only lost a toe. Rest of his foot was fine, if a bit sore.
1 Like