hahahahaha seems legit ^^
1 Like
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.
Sufficient to show clearly without any ambiguity or open questions.
Better to be cautious, since you interpret the rules as you please ^^
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.
hahahahaha pls i was talking about 2025 and 2026… this is from 2024… usless answer
Our rules are fully public. And the Spam rule is very clear. Nobody has been banned, as you claimed:
Thats not happened unless someone has spammed an unreasonable amount.
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.
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
7 Likes
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?
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.
All reports pertaining to modern armour, protection or shells are considered as suggestions. Since most of it is interpritations of data.
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
8 Likes
I remember that report, it was a lot of talk and nothing was actually done
2 Likes
The armour scheme on dev was work in progress and not complete. As with most armour schemes, they are continually tuned throughout the cycle.
All of these reports were resolved:
Spoiler
Mobility
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
Other armament
Other
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 .
1 Like
so what led to it being cut in half when it was at a realistic amount beforehand?
It wasn’t finished, as explained above.
Always the same old answers. It’s convenient to only respond to things that aren’t useful, right? It’s a waste of time answering you… when someone important decides to show up, then we can discuss.
I have been responding to as many questions as I possibly can in this thread today, whilst also trying to watch everywhere else.
I appreciate you may not have personally got the answers you wanted, but please tone it back a bit and lower the hostility. Its not going to help achieve anything at all.