@Smin1080p_WT Please can we have the gun mantlet lowered, seeing it not flush with the turret is driving me nuts.
10 Likes
Need to research this, but the batteries are clearly shown in parallel pairs and power output on one side would not be affected by loss of the others. In addition, there are turret batteries and probably a battery override function in which the power routing of hull, turret, and radio batteries can be swapped in order to keep the tank fighting.
At last, we can get a Royal Tank Regiment “Chinese Eyes” decal
Yours for just 50 player kills in British ground this month
8 Likes
You know looking at how badly the visual model has aged for Challenger 2 I think it should be in the list to get a complete remodel like the Tiger 2s have just got.
Currently I have this list of issues from outstanding bug reports:
- All TES kit ERA cages have the wrong proportions and are not actually mounted properly to the hull. Including Challenger 1mk3
- The wheels are of varying sizes between all Challenger variants.
- The base Challenger 2 is missing its splash guard.
- The base Challenger 2 is missing its frontal combat identification panels with Dorchester 2E equipped.
- The base Challenger 2s headlights are not connected to the hull with no TES kit equipped.
- The mantlet of all Challenger 2 variants is raised too high.
- The top 2 hull weld lines are not positioned correctly along the hull armour. They should be vertical not diagonal.
- Base Challenger 2s Dorchester 2E TES kit has its foremost blocks of armour too small.
- Challenger 2 rear slat armour needs animating to have swinging momentum physics as it is currently static.
- Challenger 2 OES currently shares ECM antennas with the 2F and TES when the model should be unique.
- Challenger 2 OES lacks detail on top of its addon armour along its turret sides. If you check a video flying overhead of Megatron and compare them to the game you will see what I mean.
- Turret bar armour is missing triangular joining sections in the corners.
- All Challenger 2s lack their meteo sensor mast.
- All Challengers appear too highly raised off the ground than what you see in real life.
This is all without mentioning the damage model changes which should happen.
Some of these issues are very minor but they all add up to it being outdated when we know Gaijin could do it better. To top it all off I don’t think the camouflages look very good either, a lot of the skins are weathered in ways that the Challengers don’t look like irl.
17 Likes
1 Like
Would look and feel quite nice if done properly but for some reason I doubt they would do it to the same level as they should be doing
CR2 power updates are nice, sadly turning still kills it we really do need a rework on energy lost while turning.
Not like players already found the solution lol
1 Like
Reduce the Braking force!
(there might be just be that report coming up soon)
Thw code for the swedish elde 98 can be used for regenerative steering.
Its completly community coded for leos, chsllengers and co and works fabulous
2 Likes
oh i know that, regen steering is unfinished though considering it gives you more power when steering which is ludicrous, and radii are also tending toward being too large, especially at lower gears
you’d also need the ability to kick the gears down at will (in auto mode) returned as to be able to reduce your turning circle at will
Clutch braking is the only method tanks use currently, Double diff steering was exclusively for the Elde as of the time being,
1 Like
ik this is a really minor thing, but the outer ring of the CR2 sight shows the FoV at max zoom, so in-game it should function as an option for the “Field of View” customisation… would this be something that could be bug reported? would be nice to have it function properly
why is the challenger so bad in game
Gaijins bad modeling coupled with a gamemode & maps that favours tanks with an offensive doctrine. Chally 2s are best suited in hulldown positions
I dont understand gaijins mentality, the challenger 2 has horrible armor all-round, doesnt have spall liners on the sides of the hull which makes no sense, the reload is alr, the “top” shell is one of the worst if I remember, the russian one has similar pen but the shell mass is much higher and results in better post pen, this tank is overall one of the worst, would be the worst if ariete isnt included.
nor really any worse than other NATO MBTs until you talk about the breech, but afaik it is missing some armour in places (turret roof and breech iirc), and the ERA should be better IIRC
i don’t believe it does IRL either, the only missing spall liner i’m aware of is that of the Lower Frontal plate
5s for 4 rounds, before becoming poor (6-6.5s or so out of ready rack iirc), when Abrams, merk, Ariete, all reload in 5s for a number of rounds in the teens
its one of the worst, though the Leclerc and Oplot get worse shells
its also the Slowest top tier shell
It is buggered by Gaijin’s implementation of maps, mechanics and general gameplay but the challenger 2 is met with real issues IRL and there isn’t much that can be done to rectify this
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uKfLG2d5jfoW
Player stats. Anyone that has grinded through the tree and dealt with things like APDS and no APHE are probably better than most. As a result CR2s stats look good on paper, but anyone with half a brain can see its far weaker than most.
If CR2 and other NATO tanks were modelled correctly Russia would have the joint worst tanks in game.
Now as Russia is one of Gaijins largest player bases this is unacceptable.
Gaijin make concessions to allow the Leopard 2 and M1 tanks to be on the level of the T-80/90 tanks.
again US and German markets are the more lucrative.
Simply put CR2, Merkava, Leclerc, Type 10 cannot be better than the Russian tanks. Despite being superior in the real world.
Were you at work in your CR2 when you saw this? but actually, how did you get this image?