The developers’ incompetence regarding certain nations is becoming increasingly clear. I don’t know if it’s intentional, or because they already did things wrong from the start and don’t want to waste time on nations that don’t have as much at stake, or if it’s an obsession with incorrectly pruning the armor of many NATO tanks. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gpuxRxnCZtm7
Let’s start with the laughs.
Interestingly, the Challenger mk3 and the 2 (2F) have NERA armor (it’s not lost with the first shot), while the 2 OES has ERA armor (it’s lost upon impact). Here’s a curious thing: replacing NERA armor with ERA armor provides exactly the same protection, even though the Challenger 2 OES is more modern than the other two, which logically means it should have better protection.
Now a question, why is the Challenger 2 OES armor inferior to that of the TES when they are the same ERA armor? In fact, the OES is a version with minor improvements over the TES.
And last question, is it possible that these parts are actually made of structural steel? Regarding the front of the chassis, I wouldn’t completely rule it out because it seems to be something related to the added armor on the front of the hull, like some kind of support, although I still find it strange that it’s not RHA. In the case of the sides of the turret, it does seem very strange to me; they seem more like ERA armor plates than structural steel.
In general it seems that the added armor of Western tanks is quite poorly modeled. Both all ERA models such as the Blazer, Romor, the Super Blazer (M60A1 RISE, M60A3TTS and Magach 6C), the Challenger 2 TES and OES, and the NERA armor such as the Mexas, that of all Merkavas, etc., have a lower resistance than they should.
Well that certainly could be one reason, but another reason is just the ammo storage of Cr2. It’s not that hard for the ammunition to catch fire once the tank is penetrated and destroy the entire tank.
Abandoned tanks are generally also destroyed by both sides to deny recovery, so it hasn’t necessarily be the crew that “scuttle” them but could also be the Russians that just want to deny a chance of recovery and repair
there was a Ukrainian Challenger 2 crew that claimed they got hit by ‘4 drones’ (I believe is what they said) before they had to retreat in an interview, and the Challenger 2’s donated have had their internal Chobham/Dorchester removed AFAIK, same as the abrams, meaning they are watered down versions of Challenger 2.
With Gaijin’s logic it will be added but then be disproven by an article written by some nobody in Siberia that has never known anything about the Challenger but what the propaganda tells him, saying it never had a 2000hp engine and the super CR2 will just go back to being a regular CR2
You should edit the issue with the correct video as soon as possible. Otherwise it won’t be accepted.
Very good job on finding this video though!
It’s hilarious that Gaijin won’t just fix the thing even with such clear evidence. Because “it’s a complex topic”. They just don’t care or actively don’t want to fix it.
Update on things challenger 2 related - my bug report to fix the crusader skin went though after 4 months, and its now fixed and updated in game. The author updated the skin on live.thunder but it hadn’t been updated to the vehicle, so it was broken, leaving black panel’s on the composite skirts. it had been like it for a long, long time, so I’m glad its fixed.
If you do a test shot through the drivers port I believe it does have a 50mm armour component around the turret ring. It’s why sometimes things will “pen” the drivers port but do no damage, such as the 2S38.
