Chieftain armour
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/FJjJrYjXgq2J
Engine
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/kBDyXv4H7817
FV107 armour
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/R6L92enAF1Mz
The requirement ie bare minimum for frontal protection was against 14.5mm anti tank or 14.5 AP-T(c) in game it can pen 49 mm rha at 0 meters so the front of the cvrt is a lot thicker than what is in game as proven in the pics
Minted reports mate, im gonna ahve a look the now, see if theres anything I can add to help.
Thanks much appreciated
Something being touted as such doesn’t mean anything. Objectively, the CR 3 will never be on the 2A7s (much less 2A8s which is entering service this year…) level armor wise since its hull is still thinner, with or without the add-on armor, comparing the turrets is a fools errand, the Leopard 2 has been in a league of its own since 1995.
This cannot be fixed for as long as CR 3 keeps on using modded CR 2 hulls.
When it was added it took a long time to get an accurate ish FM and Radar. Bare in mind all the Tornado had was speed and a Radar it was very difficult to play.
Radar is Typhoons major issue, it’s so bad right now. Brimstones 2 would also be nice.
Good luck finding sources on a brand new composite armour system. Gaijin refuse to use common sense.
Which are all lower than top tier, Britain is generally great they suffer at the 5.0 - 6.0 BR no APHE and penetration nerfs to the 17pdr (why is the 17pdr APDS accuracy nerf modelled in game?) makes the job of killing T-34, Panthers and Tigers harder than it should be.
7.0 is great mobility still ass but good fire power and stabilisers Cent mk3, Carn, Conqueror and FV4202 are MVPs. Sad the APDS gen 1 shatter mechanic was added this really hurts tanks like the Conqueror.
8.0 - Vickers MBT, Falcon
9.0 gets a little long in the tooth missing systems that other comparative vehicles have. Thermals
and mobility. Still love the Cheiftain Mk10
10.0 CR1 are great they are balanced while not being oppressive
Funnily enough this isn’t that much of an outlier.
I never said add on armour, I said additional armour. The new composite “Farham” I believe is the name.
thats just completely false the CR2 even now in ukraine has higher levels of protection than the Leopard 2a5s and 6s that are there.
The CR2 armour was never in question IRL, unlike in the damn game, Im not saying the tanks some indestructible force, but it certainly is world class for its levels of protection.
The major flaw for the CR2 has and always will be the top speed. though has far more range than Abrams.
So far, CR2 hulls, modified with a new frontal arc of this new composite are apparently really good.
The prototypes of the CR3 are now being tested so will see how it goes.
Also the CR2 apparently is better in far rougher terrain than leopard 2.
to sit and flat out deny the CR3 being a potent tank before its even sniffed service is wild to me.
The ready rack size specifically though is. Its the only tank in the entire game as far as I am aware with this specific nerf. I can only imagine its a hold-over mitigation for when the CR1/CR2 did have a reload advantage.
Some of the CR2s problems require far greater time and energy commitments to fix, so I dont expect them to be fixed over night. But I cant imagine ready rack size is much more than a few lines of code.
USA, Israeli and Chinese mains make the same complaints about their mbts. And except for the du armour complaint they are all somewhat justified likewise.
Not unique at all to the CR2 or CR3.
These were unfortuanately for some the right decision.
They shouldn’t do this???
They are in fact buried with many reports on many vehicles. Again this isn’t a unique issue.
It may be unique in this aspect. But there are other bug reports like it in which a seemingly easy fix goes unfixed. This is especially the case for modelling issues, visual bugs seem to get fixed quickly.
I didnt find it that difficult to play at all. if we mean the F3.
Brim 2s im aware of but the game cannot handle htat right now.
the radar is still buggered? not got the EF2000 yet, still asbolutely rip lobbies apart.
The 3TD in game is a tech demo, its based out a CR2 hull. Hence the use of the dorchester-
YOU DID NOT SAY THAT THOUGH XD YOU SAID THAT THEIR ONLY COMPETITIVE AREA IS 9.3- 10.3
Hardly. They still do great when I use them, which isnt very often anymore but they are still good tanks.
The lack of APHE (or the fact APHE massively overperforms is an issue)
The conqueror for me sstill is fantastic Ive built a full lineup specifically to use that tank alone.
8.0, cent Mk10, vickers 1, swingfire and falcon make a nice lineup but falcon is 8.3
so realsitically for 8,3 you got the olifant mk1, the vickers mk3, Za 35, warrior, rooikat mk1d
missing out 8.7? the chieftains are fantastic fun and do really well tbh.
9.3 is an amazing lineup, with the kahlid, oli mk2 , chief mk10, the rooikat MTTD or the VFM your choice. and whatever cas you want.
I like to think you do not punish a player base for the actions of one person. But them I’m not petty and vindictive.
Sadly this is what Gaijin has done, we were promised a massive rework of the CR2 and they nerfed it and raised the height of the turret to fix a visual graphical glitch exposing the turret ring.
They are planning on reworking the Leopard 2s…so far it’s been a nerf and no longer being able to fire over the rear of the tank.
CR2 depends on its armour as it has no mobility and the heavier versions of the tanks gain minimal protection gains.
Look I’m aware like every other vehicle in war thunder it has errors and needs fixed.
Yeah i’m aware of that and too lazy to edit it :P
Sorry read it as player instead of player base.
But still this is just an unsubstantiated rumour with no proper evidence.
What? xD
CR 2s highest possible KE & CE protection level per ALL AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION is 650mm KE/20 deg and 1000mm CE/25 deg - this is a whole magnitude lower than of the wedged Leopard 2s that have been achieving CE protection levels upwards of 1500mm ever since their entry into service, not to mention how, depending on the AoA, the turret can provide as much as 810mm of KE protection in a 60 degree arc (see: Swedish Tank Trials graphs).
Then there’s the fact CR 2s hull armor is straight up 1970s level (350mm was it?). Even 2A5s and 2A6s with their hull composite being from 1987 are better equipped there.
If you wanna make stuff up, don’t do it about tank armors.
Wasn’t that the prototypes and the turret IRL is better then the docs
Any way Leopard 2 has much better armour then Challenger 2 hull due to mainly the Challenger 2 hull being a really old design but the turret has proved itself to be very good in conflicts that i will not mention
That’s for the 1996 CR 2 “uparmor” i.e the LRIP version… there is no chance the turret IRL is better than this, esp since the tank has not undergone any sort of armor replacement ever since its entry into service in 1998 (I am not counting the CR 3 mind you).
600mm was for 1993 CR 2 “prototype” under the “stretch” conditions (i.e stretching the technology to its utmost limit).
This seems like a fairly bold claim to make, and I’d be very interested for some sources.
Also, could you point me to a single Leopard 2A5 in Ukraine?
Just because something is often qouted as being true doesn’t mean it actually is.
I’m not saying it can’t be true, but you’ll need a better argument than: ‘‘It’s a popular opinion, therefore it must be true’’.
The available sources point to the following figures:
Challenger 2: 500-600mm @ 40° frontal arc (KE), 800-900mm @ unspecified frontal arc (CE) for the turret.
Leopard 2A5: 817-862mm @ 0° frontal arc (KE), 1720mm @ 0° frontal arc (CE) for the turret.
Challenger 2: 200mm @ 90° (KE), 350mm (CE) for turret side.
Leopard 2A5: 371mm @ 90° (CE) for turret side.
Challenger 2: ≈350-500mm (KE), 650mm (CE) for the glacis.
Leopard 2A5: ≈410-420mm (KE), 700mm (CE) for the glacis.
He was talking about vehicles which were a “unfinished unrefined mess”.
IIRC the Tornado family is one of the most heavily bug reported aircraft in the entire game. A lot has been fixed, but it definitely met the of being an “unfinished unrefined mess” on addition.
The radar was almost non-functional when it was added. And it’s still pretty broken now. There’s also a long list of open reports on various less important issues.
You can extrapolate Leopard 2A5s @ 40° frontal arc to be in excess of 800mm (KE) and 1600mm (CE) based on the Swedish Tank Trial slides, notably the one where the turret was compared to M1A2s and Leclerc’s, but if that’s not enough, there’s obviously the “German solution” (B-tech + add-ons) vs “Swedish solution” (C-tech + add-ons) slides showing that on average the 40 - 60° frontal arc would at the very least sit at ~750mm RHAe KE and ~1500mm RHAe CE on the lower end - which still is vastly beyond the most high-end figures for the CR 2…