Having used both a lot, I can tell you the merkava ammo doesn’t get hit and blow up, CR2 they’ll fire clean through the breach and nuke the crew most times.
also the CR2 turret once you start to turn it will take more shots through it, as there are so many tanks sliding around hurling DM53 or similar rounds.
to hit the ammo on the merkava in the turret is far harder than to disable a CR2 through the turret.
the CR2 as my point still stands sa well has
worse reload over all
far worse round.
about the same optics bar the 2E.
no anti air round
only BN has LWS and IRST when every mk4 has it, even mk3
CR2 BN has better APS.
That’s about it man.
Also how is the merkava turret objectively weaker at oblique angles, if you can shoot the side of the CR2 turret it will almost always get through it, not talking at a slight angle, where as the merkava due to the angling and blank space is far less likely to do anything.
Though conceding the turret armour point, for the sake of it, the mk4 is still objectively a better vehicle than CR2. Which infuiriates me-
same with how they’ve completely ignored trunion reports.
charm 3 reports (which btw they did provide adequate sources gaijin just said no), they’ve used brochures to buff russian tanks which are quite clearly marketing lies. So why not extend the courtesy to accept a report from the British Army.
they’re adding a turret basket which IRL it doesn’t have one, it has platform but that platform wouldn’t stop turret traverse as been proven.
to be fair L27A1 is incorrect in-game, with a report on correct mass and dimensions being accepted over two years ago. i find it a bit rich for the devs to talk about “known performance” when they haven’t implemented the correct known mass and dimensions, and then use the incorrect implementation of the round in their in-game testing to justify not giving it anti-ERA performance
they’re also assuming that they have the protection of the T-80U (and K5) perfectly correct, if an in-game comparison is being treated preferentially over real world documentation
What happened with only needing 2 secondary sources when it comes to these sort of classified vehicles, how do the developers know what is and what is not true about the Pacific vehicles. Do they have access to classified information that us players do not have access to ??
What the developers should be doing is sticking to their guns only needing at minimum two secondary sources on Pacific issues with the vehicle and they should stick to that if it makes a vehicle more overpowered that’s the whole reason behind battle ratings, limited ammunition fire rates the list goes on. The developers need to massively overhaul the bug reporting system it is an absolute nightmare to pass a simple bug report on with these vague answers for denying it it is totally unacceptable and it is absolutely frustrating to the entire player base who are dedicating their time to vehicles they love and have passion for just for some moderators who know absolutely nothing about those vehicles and issues and denying them with very scripted AI responses.
You need to standardise the bug reporting system pacifically when it comes to classified vehicles and aircraft etc use need to stick to your guns two secondary sources as long as you have two sectional sources it is passed to the developers and it is changed it is fixed if new sources come out the contradicts it will then it can be debated among the community. But until then we can only go off the current information that we players have access to which is books unclassified documents, videos, pictures etc so if we have at least two secondary sources claiming L27A1 is capable and defeating ERA that gets past the developers and the developers implement that no questions asked end off. That is the way it should be no questions unless there’s plenty of unclassified information from documents books etc that contract within we can have are debate about that on the challenger 2 thread isn’t that the whole point of threads.
i would appreciate if they cited their sources for things, and showed where its estimation/speculation.
especially with how they can be quite pushy to get the whole document a bug reporter used, even if the individual spent a lot of money on it. Maybe gaijin should have GE bounties for that stuff
Are we sure the T80U is correct? t64A was ~50mm too much and that’s a simple type of composite
This one has textolite (compressed fabric) worth as much as at least concrete and possibly some armour steel
I don’t understand where they got a source from for the basket, I ain’t going to reveal too much but I am definitely sure that there is not one public internal document for a mechanics manual and training for the Challenger 2 showcases a turret basket hence why the lot of us want to know where they got that type of source from where a turret basket was “implemented” into the tank (that being false)
Adding onto this if there was there would be sufficient training and a correct manual made for the tank to handle the systems that would be around the turret basket and the mechanisms connected to it if there is any.
I found it curious that, thanks to a report, the T-64A’s armor protection was reduced, apparently demonstrating that the Textolite had excessive protection in the game, but the other tanks with Textolite haven’t received an armor reduction. I asked about it and was told it’s because the Textolite on the other tanks was better, but I’m not sure.
