that report mentioned the spall liners on the lower front plate that was never implemented.
doesnt make much sense how the “finished” armour was 250mm weaker than it should be
6 Likes
Im pretty sure we are still waiting on the spall liners
6 Likes
Only the mobility changes made a noticable performance increase. A bit lackluster to say the least, just so gaijin can say "look we already did a responce, why are you not happy 🤔 "
2 Likes
Then please go talk to someone who can really update us on the situation and give us concrete answers. Your copied-and-pasted answers from the last 12 posts are of no use to anyone. Thank you.
1 Like
he didn’t, he said they’ve already done it to those who “constantly tag them” which is as you say, against forum rules.
So the british army report of it going through the ERA and the UFP are not sufficient?
But a brochure with an advert of a kH38MT is??
What has been twisted? the CR2 newer model is worse, the round continues to be the worst 12.7 round in game.
The armour is incorrect.
Trunion model has been proven to be incorrect.
Turret basket addition is incorrect and the plate which troops stand on is not related to the turret traverse mechanism ?
The CR2 post you linked is nearly 3 years old and as @Morvran s list shows, most of the important bug reports have been “accepted” then left to rot.
It’s in a worse state now than ever as other vehicles have been continuously buffed, E.G since then 5 second reloads have been added to
- abrams.
- merkava
- ariete,
all of which now make the CR2 5 second reload advantage redundant.
gaijin have given one of the most well armoured MBTs in the world a pathetic amount of armour.
that doesn’t answer the question.
Why when it was already realistic did devs decide to literally slice it in half.
Questions here.
- where is our information on the correct ready rack for CR2.
- where is the response to the correct armour values.
- where is the response to the fact the L27A1 round which still for the past 2 years has had a bug report “accepted” about teh dimensions and velocity of the round being incorrect?
- Where are the responses to the fact the CR2 movement is still noturiously bad and IRL is no where near as bad?
- Where are the spall linerrs on the LFP of the tank?
Again morvran has a huge old list of things wrong which have been completely ignored.
9 Likes
None of my answers have been “copy paste” other than when I have been linking to relevant information.
However if my responses and presence in this thread is no longer of assistance, then I will move my attention elsewhere.
no no you can stay here :) but i still want an answer as to why the lower front plate spall liner was not implemented when every other spall liner in the report was?
I mean the “challanger 3” which we have in game isn’t even a real tank IRL.
It’s been proven to have absolutely nothing of what makes it a CR3 Tech demo either bar the cannon which last I looked was a modification of a 2
Wooow lets not get too hasty now. We need all the help we can get.
2 Likes
Before you go, can you adress the series of question I have poised? :)
I mean it’s one of the reasons teh WT managers have next to no communication with the reddit community.
Not Smins fault devs won’t use hte information given, don’t shoot the messenger n all that.
1 Like
CR2 is still missing spawl liners in the hull.
AFAIK the ESS on CR2 is still coming out of the wrong exhausts (when using the add on armor) ((may be wrong))
CR3(TD) still has the wrong name, should be Challenger 2 (ATD 2019)
CR3(TD) still has missing spawl liners…
there’s plenty that say they have been fixed but haven’t.
2 Likes
That’s what I was thinking it should be,
2 Likes
He did. We have never banned anyone for a few tags. There is a difference between asking a few times and absolute spam tagging. Which nobody here has done today.
Sadly no, for the reasons we explained here:
We welcome any new reports that we can pass on for review with new information.
Please read what I was responding too regarding the Abrams getting a developer response and not the Challenger, when the Challenger received one already long before the Abrams.
The question was why was it reduced from the value it was on dev, and the answer was because that value was not the final intended value and the tank was still being configured. Tanks can have massively over or under estimated values when they are being tuned, leading to numbers that are not intended. The final value was in line with all of the concluded evidence the developers had at the time.
Other reports are since open on that. But that’s why the value was changed.
It very much is:
The only subjective matter is the name, as it has been called Challenger 2 LEP and Challenger 3 in multiple instances. In the end, to better distinguish it from all the other CR.2s, the devs decided to keep CR.3 TD.
2 Likes
i dont understand how the L27A1 report was denied when given more than enough information but then certain russian things will be implemented off of 1 dodgy brochure
6 Likes
please answer this (specifically the top one as you already answered the bottom)
4 Likes
I think TD name is good, it would be like calling the IT-1 a T54 missle launcher
silence
snail dev have another information to prove they dont think so
/j
Can somebody share the L27 penning T80 document part again?
2 Likes