when did they post this doc?
I see! So the 510mm value is actually accurate?
As far as I remember, 500mm was the very minimum requirement of the design, but I didn’t think the production model went on with the bare minimum values required.
That sheet also doesn’t have values for the protection of the LFP composite block and it’s been that way for at least a year and a half. Unless the addition of the plate is accompanied with something saying the hull armour is currently underperforming, they’ll stick to the 510/525mm
Like a week or 2 ago
Attached in a response to a 2A7V bug report
well its the british we’re talking about, and gaijin, they’ll stick to prerequisites instead of potentials. I’m talking both of them lol
I also kinda love how the sheet states it’s 520mm KE (without additional plates), yet, ingame, we get;
Challenger 2E’s right side: 495
Challenger 2E’s left side: 530
Challenger 2’s right skde: 510
Challenger 2’s left skde: 540
And similar thing with Challenger 3, although I am not on PC right now and can’t remember the exact values hahah.
I believe Challenger 3’s armor was like 2E’s; 495 on the right side and 520-530 on the left side.
Just as I remembered, yay! Thanks for the screenies hahah.
See, like… why is the right side weaker than the left side? It doesn’t even reach 500mm when it supposedly should be 520!
something I just noticed is the Leopard 2 turret front CE is weaker than both the turret side and hull lol
I don’t know which values would be historically accurate for the CR2s, but, honestly… I just wish it were at least 580mm KE, so that it could stand a chance against at least 3BM60, not gonna lie.
I find it strange how this is modelled as structural steel, Is it not more likely to be RHA or even HHRHA?
Judging by the visual model its almost more like 50mm rather than 25mm as its around the same thickness as the 50mm plate behind it.
Ammo still not exploding
(my ammo rack got 0ed later and i did not exploded)
So i guess the blow outs are real (dm33 loaded)
Im in WT, the reason the right is stronger is because its also counting the ready rack ammo bins as another layer of armor before it reached important stuff (loader), atleast I think so. However from testing, the right does seem a teeny bit stronger than the left. However the difference is miniscule
Hopefully it will remain like this!
Otherwise, CR3 would be literally unplayable, since each and every single mantlet penetration hits the ammo.
If this is an unintended bug and they change it, it will be the death of CR3 until it gets DM63A1 for the same ammo detonation-proof effects.
We will see, but i am optimistic
Hits the ammo, ammo rack bins add to the armor
Hits the loader, misses ammo rack.
Misses loader and ammo, hits engine fire wall, that firewall adds to the armor
Visual model is incorrect, Challenger 2 basic with add on armor has it correctly modeled, its the same, just not as covered by a camo net
As for why its structural steel? Idk gaijin I guess
The Chally 2 OES has it even worst, atleast that is a mounting bracket for ERA or composite. The OES has the additional side turret plates and those are structural steel for some reason. I guess making it RHA would make it too op
How gaijin decide hull values XD