could that not be ROMOR-A lmao
ROMOR-A? Seriously? Not even B or C, just straight up A?
This is the MoD we’re talking about, though I’d hope someone in the Army objected on the grounds of “why?”
A is an ERA.
In fairness has the MOD ever claimed that is a Cobham block. Or did everyone just assume it was (without evidence) and then act surprised when it wasn’t?
3 Likes
Not sure tbh. I just remember it being called Chobham, so i did the same.
I dont think there is anything from MOD itself, so it most likely comes from one of the books.
I know. This is the MoD we’re talking about. Stupid sh*t has been known to happen and continues to happen. (Though I hope it really isn’t ROMOR-A, I think at the very least I’d throw something at Whitehall. Though it’d have to be a fairly big something)
There was a recent picture from Ukraine showing the turret cheek array consists of spaced “plates” roughly the same thickness and spacing seen in that photo of the side block. (At least the first and second plate are visible)
Not entirely sure what the plates are but I doubt they’re RHA as they all have those bolts(?) that have been seen on the mantlet, running through them in a grid pattern.
That side block seems to be similar construction to the turret array at least (Albeit with only 2 plates), with “plates” spaced apart and bolts running through them, then a thin metal cover over everything(which has been removed in this photo).
It was all a ruse, it turns out spaced armour has always been the best armour. You have found out the truth and now shall be culled along with the rest of us who know.
accursed be spaced armour on the IS-2. It’s literally the only thing my shitbarn hasn’t consistently killed (yes I’m fully aware the regular IS-2 has no spaced)
Perhaps they were comparing it to the Leopard 2’s armour without the add-ons, which makes it more believeable
Do we know which exact variants were included in the trails which the CR2 was compared against?
I’ve seen the base M1A1 and Leopard 2A4 mentioned in documents, and if those were the comparison models, I personally wouldn’t be particularly impressed if a mid '90s Challenger 2 boasted superior protection to those.
I think this is the case, anyone know when this document was made?
Walked past this van today, I think the universe is trying to tell me not to play the Chally 2
15 Likes
Thats actually quite funny, thats got to be custom.
Why doesn’t the Challenger 2 use a transverse power pack? On the one hand, it can shorten the length of the vehicle body, and on the other hand, it can free up the space to use the longitudinal power pack to increase the thickness of the armor.
Probably because saving interior space was not a priority. Longitudinal engines also have the advantage that they are easier to access/maintain and have better weight distribution.
those BR changes are depressing…
1 Like
Look at it this way: at least they didn’t move the TD
What are they even trying to decompress with these BR changes? 9.0-9.3
On another note, all the more reasons to not play the Challengers.
1 Like