I mean, we’ll wait and see. I’d also be interested to see where the Gripens are at in terms of performance, last we heard is they were being monitored but…
1 Like
balls missed that :(
god i forget the sounds are so nutty
Damn, I often look on the Vickers mk.7 turret armour and what’s shocking to me that the breech area is so huge, is pretty oblique and the cover seems like it has Abrams-like composite behind it. But the sad reality is the breech is pretty void, having only some 200mm plate behind it like most british tanks after the good and loved CR1. I think that Gaijin has some kind of bias towards unarmoured breech areas in almost all British tanks past 1945, especially the MK.10 Cents, Challengers and the Vickers itself.
I wonder if theese decisions to model breech areas in Brit tanks comes from the fact, that the CR hadn’t any kind of composite NERA covering it’s breech thus all later deigns share that too?
Here’s my amateur visualisation
7 Likes
Cent Mk 10 is missing its trunnion (200mm), reported
Challengers2 trunnion is half its size, probably some other things that make the mantlet such a weakspot, also missing trunnion pins.
Vickers had very simmilar turret armour to the Cr1, reported
11 Likes
Cheesecake is like sex. Even when it’s bad it’s still good.
Love cheesecake, could eat an entire one to myself .
2 Likes
- British tanks in War Thunder have been artificially created with mantlet weaknesses: from Chieftain MK10 to Challenger 2, the mantlet weakness area is constantly growing
10 Likes
For the MK.7 It should be at least as effective in the breach area as the composite internal on the Osorio as that was another vickers turret with export compatible composite across the entire frontal arc of the turret which protected against 105 mm APFSDS. If not then they might as well give us the Osorio for equal mobility and firepower but very much visible composite coverage.
1 Like
So some time between now and the heat death of the universe, but likely more towards the latter.
I know it’s probably the wrong standing as it’s Brazilian but I really do think we should get it. As the turret is the vickers universal turret and is probably the best tank that can get it apart from maybe the mk 4. Especially with how they gave the Germans the Argentinian sk due to it having German components…… I just really want it because it’s one of the best looking mbts and I want to add it to my collection of challengers and arietes, plus maybe the type 10.
2 Likes
I agree, but I don’t think it’s the wrong standing, it was a Vickers-Engesa project and wasn’t even officially requested by the Brazilian government nor the British Government. So both countries have a claim.
If they have plans for Brazil in-game then sure they can choose to put it in whatever tree Brazil materialises in but there were two prototypes and several gun options. So they could give us one and the Brazilians another. Or they could just fill the armour of the Vickers Mk.7 with composite and also add the Mk.7/2 and we won’t be in need of a high mobility tank with decent protection (2A4/Abrams equivalent) and Brazil could get them both.
What I do know is that it has no business being in a tree that is not Brazil or the UK. I’ve seen suggestions for Germany because its engine was German (even though it was bought off the shelf and not as part of the hull), or for France because a GIAT 120mm was an option (even though vickers were the one’s who integrated it, again off the shelf).
And yes its certainly a pretty tank. My British MBT looks ranking goes Challenger 1>Vickers Mk.7/2>Osorio. Then things like CR.2 and the rest come after.
1 Like
The Osório was made primarily for export, with the version they made for Brazil being worse (Worse cannon, worse stabilizer, worse optics, no thermals, maybe armour too, etc), which explains the lack of interest on our part. The turret was designed together with Vickers but the armour was designed by Engesa, it was still in development during the trials and maybe could have been better if the project survived longer.
This was not wrong, first of all there was no Brazil in the War Thunder and no claimed country and second he had a turret designed by the British Vickers company, which could be divided according to the gun: adding the 105mm L7 tank gun to the British tree and the CN-120mm tank gun version to the French was not controversial at all
If the claim is based on the engine, then I am sorry to say that MTU of Germany has been bought by Rolls-Royce of Britain
So any vehicle with MTU engines should be added to the UK, and BAE’s CV90 should return to the UK
1 Like
The 105mm version is worse in many aspects compared to the 120mm one.
You mean Rolls Royce of Volkswagen?
The UK gov had the CR1 anyway, and although it performed only just better than the AMX 40, it had much better armour than the Osorio.
AFAIK the turret already existed and the composite armour on the turret and the hull was done by Vickers. Certainly the turret but the hull I may be wrong about.
It definitely would have evolved but the Brazilian army was prepared to accept orders of the prototype standard and indeed did take the singular good prototype into service. But it did still have issues in the armour.
What surprises me if that the UK didn’t do anything with the hull. Mobility was always an issue with British MBT’s and the Brazilian type hull managed to introduce hydropneumatic suspension in a more lightweight package which did include composite armour. Naturally much worse armour than the CR.1 but a much better overall hull layout with a higher speed and the same great suspension system. I’ve heard the engineering of the CR.2 suspension particularly is a big factor in its immense weight.
Particularly when considered that the Vickers MK.7 used a Leo hull but failed after German’s ‘arms restrictions’ (MK.7 beating the 2A4 in trials), it amazes me that they didn’t redevelop the Osorio hull with Chobham.