Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion (Part 1)

It might help, maybe not, but I read a while back that when the UK was debating the 2A4 we saw that the Germans were developing composite (D-Tech) which they thought at the time might be equivalent or better to the Dorchester or Chobham (apologies I’m not informed enough to know the differences).

Basically we know that it should have at least equal armour values to its equivalent LoS thickness in D-Technologie armour, as now RBSL is a majority German owned joint venture, there are fewer technology transfer limitations. So depending on the values for a new leo with d-tech you could try and argue it that way.

Because if Farnham was worse they would’ve just used D-tech or made it better?

Then again, its not written on paper, so its slim that it gets added.

The one in game, yes it is a c&p Cr2. Irl, no

Yea, i also knew that, but i wont go anywhere with that

Its not really something proveable its just kinda common sense, but that doesn’t transfer to the game.

I’m not sure why I expected anything else to be honest.

Ok
@Smin1080p i will be frank.
Can you ask the devs to take another look at the Cr3(p) armor or weight. It is supposed to be 66T as a complete tank, the tech demo is a modified Cr2 with the same armor. And devs went with 66t of the Farnham equipped, new turreted Cr3 and added it on the tech demo, while keeping the armor the same. Could you please ask them to reconsider one of the things. As it was said before it is a RBSL project, and they took Farnham over D tech, so it should be better. But ignoring even that. We get Farnham weight increase with Chobham protection. Can anything be done about it? Or is the Farnham protection value that max 200 people on earth know a absolute need for the change?

There was an interview somewhere where they said they werent looking at increasing protection yet and that the new turret added no extra weight so as to not compromise maneuverability, Ill see if I can find it

Well, the offical site tells that protection is increased
https://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/challenger-3/

18 rounds = 2 rounds next to the driver, 17 = 1, 16 = 0. At least now the Challenger 2 ceases to be an explosive tank :)


right right sorry, I meant for the 2019 LEP model. If thats the one they’re intent on, its a start for proving the weight is wrong without the armor increase

Sorry to say it, no armor between turret rack and crew, and no blow up pannels, so you will cook with any shot to the loader side of the gun

1 Like

Oh, then get so. It will be a great help if you could find it

But i wonder if it will go somewhere. They denied interviews before as a source. Well, we will see

Sales director of RBSL
“Protection is not part of the program at the moment”
“The turret, because of the way it is fabricated, is actually a weight gain so there is absolutly no reduction in mobility”

1 Like

Thank you so much
@Smin1080p will that suffice for the weight reduction. It is from 2019 and from the manufacturer. It says no armor and no weight increase. Will this do?

If i wont get an answear in 24h, i will try the bug report way.

This ain’t challenger 3 tho

The topic is about Cr3, but it shows Cr 2LEP /3 TD due to nothing else existing

1 Like

Yeah but this is in reference to our CR3 TD yeah?

This is where i think they got the weight increase and the armor increase (that they ignored)