Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion (Part 2)

Then why are you mentioning these “sources” if you don’t have any? And why are you trying to argue that we should just blindly assume whatever case scenario suits us best based on precisely nothing but hopium?

Put simply, this is all totally and utterly irrelevant given that even if gaijin had precise documentation on every exact detail of the tank, it still wouldn’t be used because they’ve said before they won’t do that for vehicles with currently classified information.

What you should really be doing is arguing for a BR decrease since the challenger 2s and arietes both got stung hard when they moved up top tier because the two of them seen the largest jumps.

considering their first message in part 2 is “Here is to another 10,000 posts of nothing” followed by “Poor engineering obviously” it’s probably safe to assume they’re just here to get a rise out of people, I wouldn’t bother wasting your time

7 Likes

It seems that way.

You know what they say about assumptions.

All he does is goes around MBT threads posting bait to get people to argue with him then eventually all he does is machine gun off fallacies as counter arguments.

Yes if you just label anything that disagrees with you as bait it makes everything so much easier to work around.

eventually all he does is machine gun off fallacies as counter arguments.

Did this upset you or something? Is it because I called your strawman memes low quality? I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.

2 Likes

tbf it’d be one more reason to drop it from the BR its at. and moreover, as you say, ahistorical, which is what we’re looking at (to get rid of, within reason)

image

Made a quick mock up myself lol.

1 Like

As we continuously get features removed off the 3TD it actually makes it more competitive at 11.7.

We should just be using Gaijin “Tech Demo” argument to get even more stuff removed from it.

As far as Iam aware there are two separate plates for the front mantlet strike faces.

The Strike face plate (50-75mm) due to its shape.

An inner support plate (30mm).

Looks cool nonetheless.

Yeah I was making it to describe what I meant and then Devil linked the much better one.

Dont even know why you prople even bother at this point its clear gaijin doesn’t care and you’re just screaming into the void genuine waste of time

2 Likes

yeah but what ya gonna do

be careful what we wish for ;)

I’m not wishing, I want us to make a bug report for every feature of the Challenger 3 and see if we could use the Tech Demo argument to have stuff removed.

I even tried to make a bug report that said CR3 doesn’t have turret composite because its Tech Demo vehicle, for some reason I wasn’t able to successfully publish it though so I gave up.

CR3Jeng

4 Likes

I am going to get exceeding drunk as I don’t have work tomorrow.

5 Likes

me too… at least if im going to suffer, i’ll do it in a way i can blame myself.

ASPRO-HMT having the same protection as ROMOR ERA is the biggest most blatant fck you to us all. The damn thing is at least twice as thick and much more effective. How can they even sell something modeled so wrong for 60$ is beyond me. Such obvious issue, multiple reports and still nothing. Imagine of relikt ERA was as effective as kontakt 1. The forums would burn down in 30 mins.

1 Like

Even more so where they pulled the 30mm number from.

Instead of using 3 brain cells to logically give ASPRO-HMT KE protection they took “Protection from 30mm Cannons” as its KE value. Either laziness, translation error, or willful ignorance.

1 Like

isnt it meant to defeat the desert warrior’s dart at 60 degrees by Gaijin’s definitions?