Flame has 2 year old reports for them. Should have double the current range. Also should have all-aspect though for balancing reasons it shouldn’t get that. I have a 9 month ISH old report for them not working within 400m as they just bug out.
6 Likes
the plough and the missing IRCM but that is it.
Then pop its such a gimped missile rn man and could be potentially brilliant
Yeah, they would be, which is why the Harrier GR1 and Hunter F6 are so frustrating. They are some of the weakest aircraft at 9.7 currently but only because of bugs
3 Likes
Another question, is gaijin aware of the like multiple-hundred-kilogram ERA blocks chain-detonating? This doesn’t seem right. This is 3BK18M by the way. pretty safely stopped by one block. a tandem ATGM like khrizantema will detonate 3-4 blocks at once.
Seems even weirder that the MoD would go from the 2F NERA blocks (or the NERA blocks present on the turret) which can tank 5 HEAT rounds in a row and provide the exact same protection, to that?
2 Likes
Is it certain that in reality that armor is ERA and not NERA?
iirc there’s a report in that showed it was some sort of passive/active ERA/NERA hybrid, but gaijin denied it on the basis that it can’t be definitively proven…
1 Like
its a sandwich of multiple layers of nera or era (i cant quite remember) and rha or some other solid material that effectively make it multiple layers of composite that sum up to paper according to gaijin… i will now go for my next 3 month brake to see if gaijin grow a brain, take care.
This damn stupid hole is ridiculous, jesus christ
3 Likes
Finally, the 3TD lost its LWR (no sensors were installed on it)
It’s funny how much this MBT has been lost during its existence in the game.
Well, at the moment, the strongest UP for Challenger 2 is the change of the mechanics of the IFLK APS to BN in early autumn.
Where the deflection with the penetration debuff for kinetics was replaced with its complete destruction without contact of the remnants with the armor. I asked the developers about this edit - this is not a bug, but a conscious decision.
2 Likes
Imagine wasting time and resource to remove systems from an already cooked tank.
2 Likes
It has been known about the absence of LWR on this particular tank for a long time. Apparently, the snail decided not to take back the mechanics after a long time after removing the engine at 1500 h /p
And they do it, as far as I understand, without a patchnout or any mention…
May as well remove it now
1 Like
Whole tank?)
3TD has become a tank with a maximum sad story in the game.
1 Like
Its an unifinished mess, it was thrown together to help a struggling Britain. They then shorty afterwards nerfed the engine power.
They chose not to give it the same 5 second reload buff.
Making it worse in many regards as the BK and CR2 E
They are never going to fix it they acknowledge it’s not as good as the CR2 when they didnt increase its BR
1 Like
At the other hand they give a ultra strong buff to Black Night"s APS. As a result, it began to work better than IRL
Now (since autumn хD) IFLK fully desintegrate APFSDS n 100% of cases when it works.
IRL it works not so cool, but can give a large deflection angles on APFSDS
This is partly the reason why the kinetic interception version of IF (IFLK) was intended for heavily armored vehicles, since certain armor is still needed.
Just another reason for me to never play it, honestly it should just be removed, it’s 99% a guesswork vehicle that doesn’t fill the role it was put in the game for.
4 Likes
The fkin CR 3TD is such a mess in game, its a patch work mix and mash of a CR2 and the actual TD of the CR3 , its not even realistic at all, why would it have worse protection e.g removal of the spall liner, or a horrifically worse reload, no blow out panel at all.
also on the topic of the thing losing the LWS.
- isnt the whole point of the CR3 TD to demonstrate the technologies used. such as:
- LWS
- FCS
- New cannon
- and im sure new molbity.
the CR3 TD in game is actually that bad it couldn’t stay at 12.0
edit, just to clarify, the CR3 TD can be one shot by DM13 from the 120mm cannon, so a leopard 1a1 L/44 can take it out if it wished.
The whole problem is that on the presented sample LWS was not demonstrated.
If I’m not mistaken, the placement of the sensors of LWS should look +/- like this
1 Like
Genuinely that is fair enough, however, At this stage the “CR3 TD” is barely worth having in game, at all, the tank is neigh on useless. If you can whip up a model with it on it the LWS I mean, why tf cant gaijin implement it on it.
Why not just use the CR2 with the 120mm that was tested in 2006 that has far more information on it than the monstrosity of a broken CR3 TD that is just worse.
5 Likes