May as well discuss it here, not like anything’s being done on the challenger anyway lol.
5 Likes
I have been a long-time player of this game, and I am pleased to see the Challenger 2 receiving attention in the upcoming update. Having played the British tech tree for quite a while, I have felt a bit exhausted recently, which led me to take a break from the game. Based on my extensive experience with the Challenger 2, I would like to suggest the following improvements:
- Ammunition Capacity and Replenishment: The reserve ammo capacity is severely lacking. Only having four rounds in reserve is insufficient, and the replenishment time feels excessively long. Since the shell penetration and lethality are relatively low, the tank needs to be able to sustain fire to remain competitive.
- Turret Protection and Hull-Down Capability: To effectively utilize the Challenger’s signature turret armor, it needs a buff to its gun mantlet or overall module protection. Even if the exact armor values are difficult to adjust due to limited public data, adjustments such as relocating modules or increasing module durability would greatly help in emphasizing the advantages of hull-down playstyles.
- Mobility and Handling: Despite the engine power being increased to 1,300 hp, the mobility does not feel significantly improved. While I have no complaints regarding the acceleration—as it is realistically expected to be sluggish—the tank loses an excessive amount of speed when turning.
- Hull Armor Buffs: The Challenger 2 has a larger profile compared to other MBTs. While the upper front hull offers around 500mm of protection against APFSDS, it is unfortunately insufficient given the penetration values of the tanks it faces at its current BR. Increasing this to at least 550mm would provide a much-needed sense of confidence when facing enemies head-on.
- Side Armor Protection: Looking at various photographic references, the Challenger 2 is often seen equipped with additional armor packages. Given that its base hull is relatively weak compared to other MBTs, it needs improved side armor protection to prevent being easily neutralized by autocannon fire.
In conclusion, to justify the trade-offs of lower penetration and mobility, it is crucial that the Challenger 2’s survivability be significantly enhanced.
6 Likes
from what i remember, it should be ~500-550mm when every chunk of metal in the mantlet/breech area is included
there’s nothing that can be done to fix this in the present, its got its correct engine power, gear ratios, weight
only thing that could be done is somehow get gaijin to change the axis intertias again, or wait out for Regenerative steering
the hull armour on the Challies is fairly weak, but IRL there is a steel add-on plate on the UFP that we don’t have in game
we have these in game,
Dorchester 2E, Dorchester 2F, Dorchester 2G/H (i forget which it is)
2E is on Base Chally 2 in game (add on armour mod)
Chally 2 2F has 2F, (Add on armour mod, otherwise i think its Dorchester 2E?)
Dorchester 2G/H is on TES/OES permanently
whether or not it adds the correct protection in game is something i’m not clued up on,
i just know against 30mm APDS there’s debate wether STANAG 5 protection is with/without the backplate (gaijin says with)
Then theres the fact that the 2G/H’s ASPRO-HMT can be shot off by autocannons, which it can’t IRL
3 Likes
Thank you for the detailed response. I have more questions to ask, but I am a bit busy right now. I will get back to you in a few hours
backplate and also angle, the STANAG level document they have (for the LAV) talks about the entire protection scheme impacted at 60 degrees, but i think someone found something about blocks being tested standalone at 0 degrees, if that makes sense? it was a while ago now and ik a few people have just given up on trying to get it improved
If I recall correctly, the core of the issue is that the panel manufacturer gives certain figures, the manufacturer doesn’t supply the back plates, that’s for the vehicle manufacturer.
If that is the case, then it makes no sense for the manufacturer figures to include the back plate as it will be different for every vehicle the panel may be mounted to.
Might be wrong, but that’s my recollection.
3 Likes
what attention?
2 Likes
“In your opinion what is the best way to draw attention to an issue and to ensure a bug report is not left as accepted with no clearly defined completion date?”
Answer. Put in the Russian Tree and you’d have it fixed faster than you can say ‘eggboxes in ERA’.
-Yes chaps - I’m back! Would have been back sooner but some muppet decided to try and nearly kick off WW3. Lots of paperwork.
2 Likes
That or they make it worse as a “point and case” to how “nato vehicles = bad” despite it being in the Russia tech tree. I honestly dont think there is any winning for it.
The minor nations in the game are neglected. yes they may get some new vehicles, and yes they may get some bug fixes, but barely ever do they get anything meta changing; and when they do, its quickly nerfed into the ground.
then you look at the major three nations, and they get meta changing vehicles that don’t get fixed for a long, long time, or they are given additions to make them arguably worse. T-58, T-80BVM, 2S38, Pantsir, Turm III… all vehicles that ruled their BR ratings for far far too long and still do in some cases. Meanwhile the fox was ironed out pretty darn quick, wasn’t it lads?
Edit, forgot about the Terminator. Think I repressed it from my memory to be honest.
5 Likes
Probably just us arguing in the rumours topic lol
2 Likes
Peak Challenger 2 Gameplay
2 Likes
“realistic” game btw
2 Likes
in fairness i do think you shot the worst part of a T series side on for 1-shotting, bar the engine/transmission
Yeah my shot 100% could of been better - I misjudged the lead I needed (None by the looks of it)
it’s more the lolpen by an 11.0 through what looks like the turret cheek which made me laugh
looks like it was the very side of the breech
I do admit the perspective of the kill cam was not amasing, probably due to some desync thing
1 Like
Bringing this back from the Pt.1 thread.
did the tes/oes end up getting its additional side armour plates?
4 Likes
No, they are yet to get them.
Or rather, there is nothing official stating how thick they are, so there is no report on it, and gaijin won’t add them.
7 Likes
an 11.0 with 3bm60. The sprut being 10.0 with 3bm60 was bad enough.
I did make a report for it, but it’s been ignored
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vWpZkZiz5vJq
3 Likes
10mm structural steel that increases the weight by 5 tonnes.
11 Likes