Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion

I’ve just given up on them tbh. They are so broken and gaijin show no desire or inclination to fix them or even acknowledge there is a problem, to the extent they added the bloody t-90 which is just sad and quite pathetic.

Gaijin could fix the mobility. They could make them not feel like you’re trying to turn an oil tanker. They could make their protection somewhat reasonable. They could make the round they fire actually spall properly, but they won’t.

We have all seen videos of the challenger 2 driving around, but instead we get this… thing which bears no relation or resemblance to reality.

I don’t care if they have to fake the engine numbers in order to make them behave correctly if their transmission modelling is so poor they can’t make them work any other way.


Hey folks, Did a small writeup as a bit of an open-letter to the developers in a hopes that all our bug reporting, inaccuracies and suggestions get seen by them and given some kind of response in regards to Challenger 2’s various problems:
Feel free to add to the post anything you like or just show some support for the message i’m trying to convey, i’d really appreciate it:


Undeniable proof that the panniers are unfortunately unarmoured in challenger.

The modifiers vary depending on the specific part of the armour. In June 2022, as part of a changelog involving CR1 armour, there was a spreadsheet of intended protection values released. It’s outdated now sadly, but it does give insight on why different values are used rather than all Dorchester sharing the same modifiers.

The main issue I have is that the 320mm NERA + 70mm RHA on the lower plate, with a 30 degree structural angle, has the same intended protection level as the side protection @ 60 degrees, rather than its own unique value.

Appreciate the effort, but they won’t do anything. UK is the bullied nation meant to be weaker than everyone else.

1 Like

Since when does “around” mean only in front of?

1 Like

around, it wraps around…

That doesn’t mean much lmao, in both the CR1 & CR2 the driver is stat basically inside the UFP composite

I wrote a response regarding the excerpt on the panniers. I think it was on a different post tho

Its too vague and doesnt specify exactly where. I also created a bug report that was submitted showing that the composite must exist in the voids that are present in the front hull to satisfy the protection requirements put forth by primary documentation.

at this point we should just ask bovington to cut open those areas to settle that debate.

such as?

Does anyone have a Cv12 8a/9a datasheet or Royal hussars statement on this engine? Would be very thankfull for linking it up for me.

The Twitter account confirmed 1500hp and that’s as much as I know

1 Like

You mean this?

1 Like

That is a stupid question, but what are those cylinders that would go from the mantlet into the turret armor. I forgot the name and i simply cant find it
I plan on making a bug report of them missing, causing loss in armor
(god that looks bad, i guess i will have to wait with it untill im back on my main pc)
But i cant make a report about something that is missing without naming it. Someone please help

Rotor Pins?

I will use the pins then

Okay new Bs alert: the Iron Fist of the Black night intercepts the discards from APFSDS which were introduced last update, this mean it’s basically useless because you are out of charges after just 2 shots going your way


Welp. We must hope gaijin will make APS ignore sabots, or BN turns into CR2 with gen 3 thermals

1 Like

Do you guys want me to make a bug report?