There is a flaw with that though…
What else can you use at 11.3 with it?
Tornado GR1 is the only thing at the moment.
You would be straight up better just using the CR1 Mk3/DS and Mk7 at 10.7 to get 90% of the same tank, but at 10.7. With a lineup to use it with.
I just think they should lower the BR of all the 11.7 CR2s to 11.3 in their current state.
(and tbh, CR2 with L26 I think would be 11.0, not 11.3, and there you could reasonably get away with uptiering 10.7 stuff to use alongside it)
11.0 is T-90A and T-72B3 Arena territory, and whilst the Challenger 2’s aren’t great, they’re not that bad.
The IPM1 at 11.3 is under-tiered and it makes everything around it seem overtiered by comparison, same story with the M1A1.
Challenger 2 with L26 being the same BR as a T 80 U with 3BM-42, Merkava Mk.3 with M322, T-72B3 with 3BM-60 and Merkava Mk.3D just seems right to me, they’re all roughly of the same capability.
There’s countless BR’s across the various nations where line-ups are nearly non-existent, but I’ve never seen that as a reason to oppose a BR change.
To be fair, the more I read up on the Challenger 2, the worse and worse it gets.
During the Greek trails it was deemed to possess inferior armour to the M1A2 and Leopard 2A5S both, and only offered slightly superior armour to the Leclerc, despite the Leclerc being well over 10 tonnes lighter.
There’s still the very high likelihood of the turret armour overperforming rather significantly in-game, I still have no idea where Gaijin got the 680mm @ 60° frontal arc from given that it was stated to possess 500mm with the aim of improving to 600mm for serial production.
The multi-piece ammunition was deemed to be without benefit over it’s single-piece ammunition rivals, it also meant the maximum length of the projectiles was somewhat limited. The accuracy of the CR2 continually disappointed in various trails and the reliability wasn’t great either.
So what we’ve got is:
The British Army knew the Challenger 2 was worse than the Leopard 2 back in the '90s, but they chose the CR2 for reasons of preserving domestic tank-building expertise and industry.
British MBT programs have been pretty lackluster to say the least ever since the Centurion. This is also why I have my doubts regarding the various claims made regarding the CR2’s supposed capabilities.
Britain was continually behind on their anti-armour solutions, the Chieftain was a trainwreck, the Challenger 1 was a forced and bad alternative and the Challenger 2 was a band-aid solution.
The CR2 is just never going to be equal to it’s German or American peers in WT and a lower BR is completely justified, you can’t blame all of this on Gaijin modeling the vehicle poorly.
do we expect it to become the meta? No
But we can still certainly be annoyed about issue like:
Along with about 50 other accepted and outstanding bug reports for it (heck, even the current specs of L27A1 are wrong, its too small)
Then ontop of that you have it at BRs where it has to compete with far stronger tanks. BN and 2E especially and a shockingly bad lineup too boot.
Funny how such a ‘terrible’ tank has fared so well in actual operations then, isn’t it? One almost might think that the performance of an export demonstrator shouldn’t be viewed in a vacuum…
I’m sure you are genuine - but you are falling into a common trap of looking at military hardware using the internet as your guide.
The flaw with reading studies off the internet is that you can find a study that supports anything you wish it to. So, give me 20 minutes on Google and I can find you a study that says Leopard 2 is terrible according to one metric or another, two more studies that state the Abrams is both the best and worst tank in the world, and doubtless a Russian study that says that the T-72 is better than all of them. Or indeed another study that says all tanks are obsolete, pointlessly vulnerable on a modern battlefield. Which do you weigh as being ‘true’? They might all be ‘right’ in certain ways.
To some of your notions:
Chieftain was one of the best armoured tanks in the world with the most powerful main gun for a good while. Diabolical engine notwithstanding, it was a fit for British doctrine and the notion of smiting Red Armour from defensive positions. A ‘trainwreck’ to use your words it was not. Early marks of Chieftain are a totally different proposition from the later marks with Stillbrew, TOGS, darts and a much improved drivetrain.
CR1 was never even intended for the British Army but due to the way events turned out - not unheard of in most countries or militaries. Again, another tank where you might pick out a study that rubbishes it and say ‘it won’t win top trumps against X vehicle’. Yet look at Gulf War 1 to see how this ‘bad and forced alternative’ fared. Again, your words - how were ‘bad tanks’ able to operate so consistently well in harsh conditions and achieve among other things the longest tank-tank gunnery feat in history?
‘British MBTs have been lacklustre since Centurion.’ Again, according to who? The internet? Either the RAC is composed of superhumans able to do miracles whenever they’ve taken their ‘terrible’ machines to war - or you accept that the combat records of vehicles are a world away from a study/test environment. The thing that matters in the endgame is how a tank does in a shooting war and how many crews come back alive from said war - I’d say British AFVs since 1945 have done very well on that front.
The CR2s in Ukraine have a solid reputation - heavy, slower than T-series definitely, but crews have remarked that it is effectively a sniper rifle when used appropriately. Several different sources, at various points during the conflict all say pretty much the same thing. Not ideal for the mud as a lighter machine would - but far superior to a Soviet/Russian vehicle the crews would have been in previously. The BV probably doesn’t hurt either!
Are the Challengers the ultimate in tank design? No. Are they as terrible as internet experts say they are? Also no.
None of the above detracts from the fact that Gaijin do a woeful job with them - refusing primary sources in many cases that might remedy them. The Greeks managing to throw track pads off during furious driving doesn’t really have anything to do with missing bits of armour, dodgy ammo replenishment times or lacking regen steering.
To address this point in particular since some have tried to use it to nerf the CR2 in the past. Usually people misreading the specifications written for what would eventually become CR2 - rather than the actual in-service measurements (which are to this day covered by the Official Secrets Act).
“There’s still the very high likelihood of the turret armour overperforming rather significantly in-game, I still have no idea where Gaijin got the 680mm @ 60° frontal arc from given that it was stated to possess 500mm with the aim of improving to 600mm for serial production.”
It has not been ‘STATED’ to have 500mm anywhere. The specified protection as a minimum across the frontal arc as per the requirement 4026 was 500mm - which might be the mantlet for all we know.
It is like saying ‘my car can do 1mph’. Totally true.
It can actually do a damn sight more than that - but it doesn’t invalidate the original statement. Nor should the initial statement be viewed as an argument for saying it cannot do 5mph…
Again, look hard enough on the internet and you’ll probably find a study or article that claims the thing is made out of Bakelite and Tin-Foil. Look up another article or blog post and it’ll state that it can shrug off a Death Star Superlaser without spilling any of the occupant’s tea.
[Citation Needed]
Just because you claim it performed well (relative to it’s peers?) doesn’t magically make it so.
This is just cope and dismissal of anything that doesn’t suit your pre-established beliefs.
I’m going by authoritative sources, not simply the opinion of a random person on Quora or Reddit. There’s multiple accounts and sources that all point in the same direction: The Challenger 2 was an inferior product but chosen for industry reasons.
That’s why you go by the facts and not the subjective opinion of whomever happened to produce the study.
Chieftain possessed 250-275mm of frontal armour (against both KE and CE attack) according to British documents, it was introduced in the mid/late '60s when the T-64A had also entered service with around 315mm of protection for it’s glacis and 450mm against CE threats, the turret possessed 410mm vs KE and 450mm vs CE threats.
During the Iraq-Iran war, T-62’s armed with the 115mm gun frontally knocked out Chieftains through their turret fronts, even the thickest portions of the Chieftain could not resist a gun that was already fielded in massive numbers before the Chieftain even entered service, and that also being a gun which was inferior to the T-64A’s 125mm gun which entered service the same year the Mk.3 did.
The British estimated they stood no chance of defeating the T-64/T-72 Glacis at any distance(!).
The T-64A’s glacis composed a 80mm RHA plate - 105mm Glass reinforced textolite - 20mm RHA backplate, this combination exceeds 100mm.
It took Britain an absurdly long time to develop and field a capable monobloc APFSDS round, only by the early/mid '80s did L23 enter service, and by that time the Soviets had already started fielding applique HHA plates to combat newly developed 105mm APFSDS rounds, that same applique armour would’ve significantly reduced L23’s ability to combat T-72’s.
By the time L26 entered service Kontakt-5 was already being mounted and once again provided immunity to L26 for the areas covered by Kontakt-5, as well as the entirely of the turret cheeks for both T-72B’s and T-80U’s.
So, we’ve got a tank that has utterly abysmal reliability and readiness rates, it’s the heaviest NATO tank in threatre and what’s it got to show for it? It still is unable to frontally defeat it’s primary Soviet threat (T-72) and it’s armour is fully vulnerable to both KE and especially shaped charge threats at any frontal arc.
Exactly, they wanted something significantly better (MBT80) but were stuck with the Challenger 1 for again, industry, political and lack of foresight reasons.
The Challenger, just like it’s Chieftain predecessor, suffered from very poor readiness figures:
54% for the Challenger 1 (Operation Granby) fleet, yet you’re telling me it did oh-so-well during Desert Storm? Whilst the M1A1’s were rolling around with 80-90% readiness figures?
I knew this was gonna pop up, it’s inevitable with any discussion around British tanks.
I’ve never seen a single convincing argument that says any other peer of the Challenger could not have made the same shot.
In fact, the Challenger consistently performed poorly during comparative trails, including CAT '89 where it even got smoked by Canadian and Belgian Leopard 1’s, let alone Leopard 2’s belonging to the Dutch and German armies.
CAT '89:
The opportunity to even engage a enemy MBT at such extreme ranges almost never occurs, that’s why you don’t see many instances of vehicles achieving such feats, not because they’re physically incapable of doing so.
The fact that you’re being dismissive of this point is quite telling. The interviews I’ve seen have crews consistently remarking that it’s weight is a obstacle to it’s employment.
What good is an MBT when it cannot be deployed where it needs to be due to it’s excessive weight?
This is a lesson the Americans are also learning:
The brief period in which the Challenger 2’s were utilized in offensive operations immediately saw the catastrophic loss of these vehicles. One of which was left barely recognisable (non-isolated ammunition stowage FTW), the other completely engulfed in flames. (Refer to the video linked above).
The simple fact of the matter is that once again, the Challenger 2 has proven it’s not any more survivable than it’s peers and quite standard means of engaging tanks were immediately effective at taking out these Challenger 2’s.
So what’s the point of it’s significant weight when it does not provide superior protection over it’s peers?
And yet I’ve seen statements from crews claiming they prefer the T-64A due to it’s 125mm HE-F round which serves as the more lethal long-range fire support shell. Tanks are now largely utilized as fire support vehicles from range, so the T-64’s serve that purpose just fine.
I saw this report, but the logic remains unclear to me.
As far as I understand, given that some Challengers don’t have APFSDSs mounted in the turret, it’s assumed that all those located in the rear should be available as the first line of loading?
-Proceeds to embark on an anti-British whinge of epic proportions-
Please point out where did the Challenger touch you or members of your family? Another Vatnik it seems to add to the ignore list. Don’t bother crayoning a response.
(Must be doing something right to touch a nerve.)
In other words: You’ve got no counterarguments.
Besides, you challenged my claims, but then when I reply and challenge yours, suddenly it’s a ‘whinge post’?
Should I start arguing like sartt/sadRiper and just continually insult rather than support my claims with sources and reasoning? Would that be preferable?
…and for every claim you make - I can whip out a study or source that says the opposite. We can go back and forth like this for a while can’t we?
For every statement I’ve made you’ve dismissed it out of hand…to quote “This is just cope and dismissal of anything that doesn’t suit your pre-established beliefs.”
Then you proceed to waffle on and do the exact same thing.
‘Gunnery is terrible!’
Teeny tiny issue of long-range tank gun kill.
‘THAT DOESN’T COUNT!’
‘CR1 was terrible.’
Slight issue of the kill/loss ratio in GW1.
‘THAT DOESN’T COUNT!’
‘CR2 isn’t survivable!’
I dunno - tanking the amount of punishment it did and enabling the crew to escape before it brewed up seems pretty good to me.
‘THAT DOESN’T COUNT EITHER!’
‘Chieftain was terrible vs. T-72’.
British analysis (influencing doctrine) would tell you that most OPFOR tanks were not T-72 at this time. Most were 54/55.
‘THAT DOESN’T COUNT!’
Funny that isn’t it.
I should note that you use words like ‘absurd’, ‘smoked’ ‘catastrophic’. All indicate someone with a vested, almost emotional stake in the argument. Hence I do not believe you are arguing in good faith.
Do not waste any time responding. I can likely get the same talking points off Russia Today or from TASS.
Yep, essentially. Especially as the “ready rack” currently used in game is removed on the TES and OES to make room for more electronics
So, my understanding is correct.
In that case, the question is: how will the presence or absence of APFSDS affect the fact that the loader still has four charges in front of him in quick access?
The problem with the ready rack isn’t the number of APFSDS in the turret, but the number of charges in front of the loader. This is clearly evident in the Challenger 1.
The CR1 should also have a 20 round ready rack
Wdym by
?
Even just making the loader not mysteriously take half a minute to move less than three feet would be a start…
All of the charges are well within reach of the Loader/Operator - even accounting for things like the turret moving and moving cross-country.
If Gaijin want to insist on the small ready-rack the least they can do is making replenishment of that rack more realistic.
Yeah. I think the replenishment time is just “Desired time divided by number of shells” which is why its so long to replenish compared to something with more shells and not something actually set manually. Which is just dumb
You keep saying you can, but you’re not doing it, I think we both know why. I still welcome you to do so:
You’re dodged my point, so I’ll raise it again: Tell me why a M1A1 or Leopard 2 could not have achieved the same result if given the opportunity. You’re dodging the fact that if the M1A1 was never in a situation where an opposing vehicle was within line-of-sight at such distance, it obviously cannot even attempt the same shot to begin with.
The M1’s and Leopard 2’s showed superior gunnery in all of the comparative trails I’ve seen, yet you’re insisting they magically would’ve fared poorer in this specific instance?
We’ve got comparative firing trails in Kuwait, CAT '89, Greek Trails, etc. etc. and they all showed the British MBT’s to possess inferior gunnery yet you’re cherry-picking a SINGLE engagement as if that is more representative of the hundreds of other comparative engagements.
Show me the number of CR1’s deployed, show me the K/L ratio of other MBT’s that partook, show me how many CR1’s were even engaged in direct fire to begin with.
Just quoting K/L ratio without context is meaningless, if there were only 10 CR1’s for every 100 M1’s, of course the CR1’s will have lower loss rates.
Similarly, if the CR1’s were deployed where they received significantly less fire than American peers, of course the loss rates are going to be lower.
This is the same story as US -vs- British deployments in France, where the British encountered more German armoured forces and thus suffered higher casualty rates. That didn’t mean the British Shermans were magically of worse construction than the US ones.
Mate, it ran over a mine and was instantly combat ineffective, a subsequent artillery round saw the end of the tank.
Another CR2 was lost via friendly fire, in which the open hatch was struck by a HESH round and shrapnel detonated the ammunition racks stowed below, I don’t see this as a win and the British were already aware that non-isolated ammunition racks were a liability before this happened.
There’s nothing impressive about these feats, these are the very same methods by which T-64’s are knocked out.
Just like the majority of the British tank fleet would’ve still been Centurions, not Chieftains.
Just like the majority would’ve still been Chieftains and not Challengers by the early/mid '80s.
I’m also being generous here by comparing like-to-like, I could’ve been a lot less fair and compared the Conqueror or Centurion Mk.10 to the T-64A.
Besides, there’s been more T-72’s produced than any mark of Chieftain and Challenger combined, of course these Chieftains would’ve faced enormous numbers of T-64’s/T-72’s on the battlefield, in fact, the T-64’s were specifically stationed opposite to the Chieftain and the T-64 would’ve been it’s primary threat during the majority of the Cold War. A tank which it was incapable of frontally defeating.
Alas, trying to counter Gaijin-Logik™ is something of an uphill struggle when it comes to non-Russian vehicles, and especially with British vehicles.
If turret rotate backward? Whats then?
UPD
Ah, you’re talking about replenishing the ready rack. Then I misunderstood you.
