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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
6 Likes
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…
2 Likes
Unless you are talking about the TES/OES which iirc, should have something like 1600mm CE protection. but is barely 400mm at the moment
1 Like
Does gaijin have any plans to fix the entire multiple-ton steel (or aluminium, as they claim) backplate just… falling off when shot and leaving the ERA levitating midair?
8 Likes
No
2 Likes
We have to stop complaining about the Ch tanks or gaijin will make their periscopes the FCS…
Like they did with the Scimitar
3 Likes
BTW what is it wiht scimitar sliding around when you so much as look at hte turning key? ??? its as if its tracks are modelled 3 times longer than they are xD
3 Likes
I find that with any tank that is “light” I just think gaijin traction code is bodged to work for heavier tanks and fails whenever the weight is below about 40t
3 Likes
even then for the scimitar it is noticably worse, compared to even lights like the xm800T and such dont start turning like they’re glued to the ground, and then drop all their speed so dramatically.
1 Like
Hmmm… God knows then but whenever I play the scimitar it does certainly feel like it has no mass
1 Like
Take a T10 or a faster heavy, onto an ice lake, compare it with the scim xD its as if its non existent the traction
It over steers so much you need to correct it, then itll force it the other direction literally taking it from 60kmph to about 20
I believe it might be due to the suspension being modelled really badly.
When you turn the tank leans due to the suspension being too “soft”, which then makes the tank less controllable. Then you have to counter-steer, which corrects the turn but also makes you lose more speed.
Whenever you drive offroad the tank just bounces around everywhere and is impossible to control, its horrible.
Its probably a combination of messed up brake forced, suspension etc…
2 Likes
