heres the old M829A2, same pen at 2km
1 Like
Ok that would make sense, im stupid :(
2 Likes
I am using my Swedish ones 😂
I also wanted to ask: is there any lore reason why Challenger 2E’s hull armor is even worse than the rest of Challenger 2s?
520mm is already too low on Challenger 2s, but… 490 on 2E? Why? Just why? Is this a bug or did this tank somehow have downgraded armor?
2 Likes
I do not know about anything that would cause this.(maybe once i translate that one russian document i will be able to find anything, but i cant do it rn) Unfortunately, due to it being armor problem, we can either have a shot with comparing it to the normal challys, and it gets passed as a suggestion to be fixed soon tm, it causes armor in the normal challys to get worse, so they match 2E value or it goes nowhere as we need source to prove it. Also fun fact with the CR2 ufp there is a giant dark blue armor part that is not counted in the protection value, just sits here taking space
(Light blue 50mm, yellow 200mm (ignore the fact it is at least 3x thiccer than what 200mm would be when comparing it to the 80mm plate thiccness, nothing we can do there) , dark blue nothing, light blue 80mm)
Ok i digged some files and i found the reason, or so i think???
Cr2 BN Hull armor
2E
So change from the turret_05_back to superstructure_bottom causes this. It seems like missing of EffectiveThicknessMax is causing it to provide flat 80mm istead of variable one, or so i suspect.
Still if is fun how giant composite with nera is so big, yet it states 200mm(i can find the actual thing that is this block, so i take the 200 not only as showed but also as given value (WHY IT IS SO HARD TO FIND THINGS IN THOSE FILES??!??)), and even then these 200mm gets 0.01 modifier.
2 Likes
We need to report this, it is clear 2E’s underperforming…
I mean, all of them are underperforming, but 2E is underperforming even more lmao
This is just sad. I try to find reasons to convince myself to bring myself down to play with the Challenger 2s, yet I can’t find a single reason.
Back in 2019, Challenger 2 wasn’t the fastest or most meta, but at least it had rate of fire and armor as redeeming qualities. Now it has got NOTHING. Nerfed first-stage reload and nerfed armor…
8 Likes
I made another diagram, this time with ingame pictures.
Here, you can clearly see how even on the ingame model the internal shield/trunion/rotor is missing half of its thickness. The front part of the mountings are empty when they should not be.
It should be 400mm thick, not 200mm thick.
Between the internal 200mm missing and the 90mm missing angled shield cover, Gaijin is basically robbing Challenger 2’s mantlet 310mm KE. It would go from its currently miserable 270mm KE to 580mm KE.
If Gaijin fixed the mantlet and the first-order replenishment speed (or, alternatively, made the back racks a part of the first order rack, as it should be), Challenger 2 would already be worth playing: and if they fixed the hull sides and the glacis front, it would be even better! Would still not be meta, but could become competitive at least.
13 Likes
After looking at the mantlet(ignoring its incorrect shape)
and looking at the model
It is missing ist back half (red) and the plate at the front (yellow)
(Dont judge me, im busy, i did in 2 min in paint, ok?)
7 Likes
Oh, I see now in more detail, true!
Around 100mm on each side. Basically, yeah, missing around 200mm.
8 Likes
Given what @Fireball_2020 has mentioned about the mantlet in the past, this additional 200mm they should have, plus the other changes should make the mantlet pretty hard to pen, no?
3 Likes
Yea, it should be 100 to the back, moved to the back a little so it is centered, and 100 plate at the front or something like that
1 Like
Angled with a turret wiggle it could probably exceed 600mm KE equivalent.
1 Like
I will be fine if they made it to the around 450mm total, so considering it takes 1/3 of your tanks face its armor counts
1 Like
Nah, each plate is ≈ 50mm, but the rotor itself is ≈300mm
2 Likes
Well thats still 400 excluding the trunnion holes and th titanium face plates on the front right?
100mm at 56° + complex internals of triangle + 50mm WHa + 300mm CHa + 50mm WHa(?).
1 Like
Idk if this is the right place to ask but I will anyway:
Could/should the Chally 2 Black Night and Chally 2E get Dorchester? As far as I know there’s no reason they wouldn’t be able to use it, and it would at least add some protection and some is better than none
how it is right now it wouldn’t really make difference
1 Like
Theres nothing physically preventing them from mounting the kits as far as I know but the Black Night demonstrator was never equipped with it and 2E was offered for sale before the kits were mounted to service vehicles.
Game wise I expect since 2F and TES are already 11.7 they dont want tanks with other advantages like BK’s APS or 2E’s 1500hp to get the same armor kits and become straight up upgrades (even if they basically already are because the armor kits are the closest thing to useless)