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.
what attention?
“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.
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.
Probably just us arguing in the rumours topic lol
Peak Challenger 2 Gameplay
“realistic” game btw
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
Bringing this back from the Pt.1 thread.
did the tes/oes end up getting its additional side armour plates?
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.
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
10mm structural steel that increases the weight by 5 tonnes.
Classic. And you can bet you cotton socks its never seeing the light of day. Buffing the challeger is FORBIDDEN 🚫
Kinda sad seeing bmpts just struggle to kill abrams and leos from the side with their 30mm (living longer than 3 seconds) while the challenger is just one shot usually. Even in the TES youll usually be killed in a matter of seconds due to the blocks dropping of at the sight of a 7.62.
Being over pressured from missiles hitting my side skirts isnt something i thought i would have to deal with in the TES…
Is it me or is the CR2 now just so sad, the main round barely pens and you are probably the only tank a BMP-T can kill from the front with 30mm APDS. We have the poorest performing rounds at top tier.
The game is just too fast, the maps too small and the CR2 and 3 are just not suited to single cap spawn rushing.


