For the same reason that the shells in the Leopard 2 hull aren’t considered ready rack?
What’s the difference?
They’re far away and not in the turret. If the turret is turned, some of them are unavailable.
I have already said that the concept of ready-to-fire projectiles does not mean that all of them can be loaded at maximum speed.
They are right next to the gunbreach. That is the difference.
You are acting like the rest of the charges are inside the front of the tank. They are not, if anything they are closer to the breach than the 4 you are pointing at
So you can still load shells from there.
They’re also ready to be loaded in-game.
try to turn the turret and they are no longer near the breech.
If you turned the turret that far, then the forward charges become the primary use. But as far as I am aware, no other tank in-game is held to that standard
such as the cheiftains
19 round ready rack
and the Chieftain has way worse ergonomics than the CR1 or CR2
1 Like
This is really strange, I’ve never played the T-54.
I’m saying the game can be inconsistent, but in this case, using Challenger 1 as an example, I see that the logic I described was used.
Could they do it differently? Yes.
Could they not do it differently? Yes.
And in Chieftain Gaijin have considered the charges behind the loader to be part of the ready rack
It extends further to T-55s, T-62s, a few Obj and Chinese alikes of those just mentioned.
Then the game would have to know whether you have ammo loaded in all parts of the tank or not.
Plus, there are still turret positions, like 90-degree rotation, where access to both the front and rear is impossible or very difficult.
In my opinion, the number of darts in the turret doesn’t matter, because even now, darts in the turret niche could be part of the ready rack, but they aren’t.
So explain why the Chefitain has a 19 round ready rack and the CR1 and CR2 have 4 round ready racks despite having the exact same shell/charge locations?
and the Chieftain has worse ergonomics
I agree. It seems inconsistent.
I’m just saying that I wouldn’t directly correlate the report with the increase in ready rack capacity.
The number of shells should decrease, and the rest depends on what the developers decide.
In the videos I’ve seen of the Challenger, a truly fast reload is only achieved by using four shells from the turret.
If there are other examples , I’d be interested to see them.
Imo.
We should have 3-stage ammo. The rounds very close to be faster than 5 seconds. Then 5 seconds for the rest of the rounds and then the current 7 ish seconds for the rest of the shells.
But if absolutely nothing else.
There is no good reason why each round of the ready rack takes 20-25 seconds to replenish.
If Gaijin determine, for some random reason, those reports are wrong. Then they can make the ready rack replenishment time be far faster, given the rounds are right next to the loader
I agree with this. Refilling the 4 rounds in the turret should take 5-10 seconds.
Regarding firing faster than 5 seconds, it seems absurd until the Abrams or Leopard can do it.
The Abrams or Leopard’s loading method is faster and more convenient than the Challenger’s.
Even to achieve loading speed comparable to the Abrams, the Challenger’s loader has to hold the next round in his hands beforehand, which is obviously not modeled in the game and cannot be achieved with continuous firing.
Yes, lap loading does also help make it faster, but I dont think 4.5 seconds for the first stage (with 6-7 second replenishment time) , 5-6 for the second stage (being the 20 rounds) and then 7 seconds for the rest would be unrealistic.
and from a game pov. we are talking about one of the weakest shells at top tier and the weakest at 12.7. So giving the CR2s a decent, consistant RoF, would help balance its other issues.
It use to be one of the fastest firing tanks in-game, until the US mains started complaining
1 Like
Necrons, the quotes and documents you cited are all correct, but you’ve taken them somewhat out of context. Almost all of them refer to the tender process held in Greece. While it is true that the Challenger 2’s “overall” armor was deemed the worst of the three. Regarding the turret alone, an RHA equivalent exceeding 850mm was confirmed, making it the best of the three, or on par with the Abrams. Unfortunately, the overall evaluation considers the hull as well as the turret, which obviously penalized the Challenger. No one on this forum expects Gaijin to give us impenetrable hull armor, but we do want the flaws in the turret armor fixed. Secondly, I’d like to reiterate a point I made in another thread: unlike nations such as Germany and the USA, whose tanks are considered combat-ready straight from the factory, Great Britain’s approach is different. They have explicitly stated that Challenger 2s are intended to be fitted with additional ROMOR, TES, or OES protection packages before deployment. Currently, Gaijin either hasn’t made these armor packages available for every tank or has underestimated their effectiveness, treating them as if they only work against chemical energy threats, essentially equating them to reactive armor, which they are not.
1 Like
I didn’t call it unrealistic, I said it would look weird if the reload time of a non-unitary projectile was faster than that of a unitary projectile.
and reloads in-game are not a historical thing, they are a balance thing.
Like the Cheiftains have a 7.5 second reload, despite having a very similar configuration to the CR1/CR2 with 5 second reloads.
If anything the shells are lighter/smaller so maybe even faster (though also worse ergonomics)
I’m not saying it has to be perfectly accurate, but I think there shouldn’t be any illogical things.
If balance dictated improving the IS-2, then giving it a faster reload than the Tiger would be questionable. There are other options.
This is just my opinion
I am in favor of significantly reducing the time it takes to replenish the ready rack to begin with.