that’s exactly my point, it’s you know where doing just fine, bar sinking a bit.
as should the chieftain VS the Nato tanks of it’s BR, the Chieftain off road could keep up almost with leopard 1. due to how much speed the leopard would lose off road, as per the tank chat on the Cheiftain from the Bovington tank musuem as well as Janes book on it.
this is the google AI thing, so not certified but it does justify what I stated about cheiftain.
i mean its performance in that certain eastern european conflict it seems to be doing quite well compared to the 2a6 and m1a1 that are over there
mobility yes but turret protection goes to the challenger and iron fist is better than trophy by miles but still doesnt make up of the lack of firepower and mobility
exactly my point, and the STRV variants of the 2A5 that are there.
The turret on the Mekrava mk4 has saved me from substantially more than the armour on the CR2, a slight angle and people just shoot throuh the side of the CR2 turret.
I’ve also not had so many bloody shots through the top of the turret.
agreed trophy isn’t as good as Iron Fist however, the round, reload and mobility definitely make up for it.
Call me odd, but I prefer it without the Stillbrew!
Well I’ve been to the National Archives and read plenty of documents on the design / development of Challenger 2. In the original design proposal it is implied (though IIRC not explicitly stated) that the hull armour would be unchanged from Challenger 1. It is mentioned later that there is the option of fitting an improved hull armour array, but I’ve not seen conclusive proof either way as to if that option was taken. Hence I say it’s up for debate.
well if i remember correctly from whoever told me and shown me this is a photo of a challengers ufp taking a hit from a t80 in a certain conflict and remaining undamaged also i cant find a photo of it but it has been seen with an extra plate on the ufp
My understanding was that challenger 2 currently has challenger 1 mk2s ufp armour and that challenger 1 in game currently has the ufp of a challenger 1 mk1. That source that said Challenger 1mk2 would have its armor upgraded to counter T-72s to 500mm and then the weight of CR1 increased by 2 tonnes from mk1 to mk2 meaning it was probably implemented.
I’d reckon challenger 2 had superior ufp armor to the challenger 1mk2.
the issue here is that documentation from the selection process refers to challenger 2 as challenger mk.2 (and there were other variants offered by Vickers) so it wont be super clear
I kind of threw that out as a problem as the document listed a challenger mk2 and a challenger mk3, It seemed obvious to me they were talking about challenger 1 mk2 and mk3 as I don’t believe they would have been planning for the actual challenger 3 we know today back in the 70s.
It’s just an annoying naming convention that they retroactively called challenger 2, challenger mk2.
Though Id throw dozer blades on as number 6. Because that just sounds kinda fun to me and a vehicle being fun can offset any remaining balancing issues
