Source?
im running on 0 sleep go find it yourself
Has the L27A1 thing DEFINITELY been shut down or is it still in suggestion/report limbo?
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
The most pressing reports, in my personal order of importance are:
-
The mantlet armour reports, to have it increased to 500~ mm KE, so the tank can actually play hull down as it was intended to.
-
The ready rack report to increase it to 20+, which is historically accurate and needs to be done for balance.
-
LFP and hull side spall liners - We have photographic proof, there is no reason this shouldn’t be added by now.
-
The UFP plate addon report, which would allow the UFP to stop the majority of weaker top tier rounds (e.g. 3BM60)
-
L27A1 armour pen buffs and anti-ERA ability additions
13 Likes
I would second that list.
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
1 Like
I’d vote on that list mate.
You’re presumably thinking of this document:
Those are upgrades to Challenger 1 proposed in the early 1980s. They were not actually built, and are also largely unrelated to the eventual Challenger 2 design which emerged in the late 1980s.
Where do you find all this stuff man!
Also yeah i was about to say wasn’t he mentioning the proposed upgrades to CR1 before they decided on making CR2?
also bit off topic, but do you have any idea how I can find a way to access documents related to munitions from the L11 cannon from teh 60s/ 70s?
So challenger 1s hull armor in war thunder is accurate then at around 275mm? See I read that document as in Challenger mk1 currently had 275mm of glacis armor and then they sloted another armor matrix in for challenger 1 mk2. How do we know none of these upgrades made it to the tank? Things like the TOGS were added for the mk2 so why not the armor increase considering it had to fight T72s?
Because we have later documents from the 90s saying that the hull has 350 mm KE protection (likely with the add-on armour from Op Granby). So we know it wasn’t increased to equal the turret armour.
Also that document seems unreliable as a whole. The 500 mm KE figure for the turret is quite dubious. Later documents always put the turret at 435 mm KE (at +/-20°) or 480 mm KE (likely head on).
I guess it also comes down to what ammunition it was tested against. Fair enough, I didn’t realise it was such a mixed bag of evidence. 480mm KE head on would be slightly better than it’s current war thunder turret.
I didn’t know challenger 1 vs T72 was such a close fight.
Armour is only one part of the dynamic though.
A CR1 would likely be able to spot, target and put a round towards said T-72 before the latter would be able to in return. You don’t land the world’s longest-range tank kill (3.2 miles or 5600 yards) using crumby Soviet optics and an equally dodgy FCS computer.
Working on the premise that it’s always best to mallet your opponent from as far away as possible; that’s pretty much been the design philosophy of every Brit tank since Conqueror. When used in that way; the armour would likely be more than sufficient even if we go for the base CR1 stats on the hull and lower-end of the turret figures.
It would ALSO explain why CR2 really does not work on the kinds of maps we have in War Thunder - even the ‘big maps’ are quite constrained in terms of sight lines and engagement ranges.