Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion (Part 2)

[luque13]

Russian devs do not like the CR2, BVVD made fun of it when they finally added the CR2 TES and we thought sick we are going to get a well armoured CR2…They did a rework and made it worse, they reluctantly added L27A1 and intentionally made it worse than the big 3s main rounds.
They buffed the mobility, sort of and now they have added turret baskets and systems that make the tank even more likely to suck.

CR2 will never in game be as good as the Russian top tier tank. The exact same with Leclerc, Type 10, Arriete, Merkava and Chinese tanks. This is reinforced by Gaijins desire to give everyone an M1, 2A6/7 and a T-series tank.

[cherish_kokoro]

I think they called the fire department this time because they spotted a large fire that was spreading rapidly. The developers don’t seem to care about fires in small towns.
Even when we shout loudly here, the developers pretend not to hear us.

Strangely, submitted bug reports are accepted as “suggestions” rather than “mistakes” and ignored for years. (Why is a report with different ammunition sizes considered a “suggestion”?)

Occasionally, they will explain their thoughts, but often they use few words, which only creates further friction. I understand that the development team is busy, but it’s frustrating to have to wait for years.
Several people have left, tired of the endless arguments, and it’s exhausting to watch.

[Astrad70291]

If I were you, I’d get checked for ADHD. Next time, I’ll draw you a picture.

[Metaltank1990]

lol.

I was just really confused as to how we got from “the devs should be more transparent” to “we should abandon physics and become flat earthers” for a moment.

[Astrad70291]

hahahahaha seems legit ^^

[Smin1080p_WT]

@Astrad70291

There’s no point in continuing to tag him, you’ll just end up getting banned. That’s the only power community managers have; they’re the lowest echelon of the company. I’m telling you this because they’ve already done it to those who constantly tag them.

We don’t ban anyone who tags us unless its continuously spamming to an unreasonable amount, which is against forum rules. Please don’t make up complete falsehoods.

[Smin1080p_WT]

@zuadao

may i inquire what sufficient means?

Sufficient to show clearly without any ambiguity or open questions.

[Astrad70291]

Better to be cautious, since you interpret the rules as you please ^^

[Smin1080p_WT]

@Astrad70291

Just to point out that a developer should show their support: the thread to fix the armor on the new Abrams had 23,000 views and 2,000 replies, and they fixed it. Challenger 2 in just one of two threads had 185,000 views and 4,000 replies, and no one’s taking us into consideration.

Challenger 2 received a full developer response long before the Abrams: [Development] Discussing reports related to the Challenger 2 MBT

Again, please do not twist facts.

[Astrad70291]

hahahahaha pls i was talking about 2025 and 2026… this is from 2024… usless answer

[Smin1080p_WT]

@Astrad70291

Better to be cautious, since you interpret the rules as you please ^^

Our rules are fully public. And the Spam rule is very clear. Nobody has been banned, as you claimed:

@Astrad70291

There’s no point in continuing to tag him, you’ll just end up getting banned

Thats not happened unless someone has spammed an unreasonable amount.

[Smin1080p_WT]

You are using the numbers of threads combined from that year and before since that answer was posted. So yes, it very much is relevant.

6,000 posts of this was before CR.2 developer response.

[Rzi4628-live]

and yet the tank is still in a bad state because half the buffs it got in the rework never made it past dev server

[Astrad70291]

Why do you only respond to what’s convenient for you? Respond to technical requests with technical elements if you can… how do you justify a barrel that moves on a nonexistent pivot?

[Smin1080p_WT]

We’ve answered all the questions we possibly can. Sadly we cant answer every single one. However posting fabrications and twisting things sadly isn’t going to help things.

[Smin1080p_WT]

@cherish_kokoro

(Why is a report with different ammunition sizes considered a “suggestion”?)

All reports pertaining to modern armour, protection or shells are considered as suggestions. Since most of it is interpritations of data.

[Rzi4628-live]

may i ask what happened to this from the old dev server with the rework where the breech armour was performing realistically then it got cut in half on live?

Spoiler

and the random dissapearence of the dozer blade and the realisticlly performing ufp armour? which was also removed on live after the “rework”

Spoiler

[TD_SEB]

I remember that report, it was a lot of talk and nothing was actually done

[Smin1080p_WT]

@Rzi4628-live

may i ask what happened to this from the old dev server with the rework where the breech armour was performing realistically then it got cut in half on live?

The armour scheme on dev was work in progress and not complete. As with most armour schemes, they are continually tuned throughout the cycle.

[Smin1080p_WT]

@TD_SEB

nothing was actually done

All of these reports were resolved:

Spoiler

Mobility

• Turning issue when at low speed.

Armor and Survivability

• Challenger 2 Ammunition Armoured Stowage Bins Too Thin
• Challenger 2 Incorrect Additional Side Armour Composition
• Challenger 2 (All) - Missing Spall liners

Main gun

• Incorrect side depression for main gun

Other armament

• Incorrect ammo count for Enforcer 7.62mm. Should be 200 rounds with optional 400 round mag, currently 100

Other

• ESS on challenger 2 coming out the wrong exhausts

Challenger 3 TD

• Challenger 3(P): Incorrect name
• Challenger 3(P): armor missing and not align with the model
• Challenger 3(P): missing armor around the ammunition storage
• Challenger 3(P): Incorrect Weight
• Challenger 3(P): Missing Spall Liner
• Challenger 3(P): Wrong engine sound
• Challenger 3 (TD) turret floor invisible and misplaced.
• Challenger 3 (TD) turret bustle ammunition not exploding/venting .