We are not going at this again, right?
Lucky i’m not in the British army
1 Like
International Defense Review 1990 vol 23 issue 9
On the right side, 25 lines from the bottom
Regarding the mobilty of the challenger.
I am convined there is something very wrong with their transmissions as modelled.
There is almost a delay when using the tanks, they feel like they’re stuck in glue sometimes. Heaven help you if you try to manouver at low speed, you’ll be stuck at about 3kmh while it tries to turn. When you do manage to get up to speed, if you turn a big you lose a huge chunk of your speed.
There is a stark difference between the t-72AV and the challenger 2. The t-72AV has a hp/weight ratio of 18.1 while the challenger 2 has 19.1. Yes, the challenger 2 has much more weight, but it also has lots more HP to compensate. Inertia etc. obviously plays a role, but the difference in manouverability, especially at low speeds is stark.
I am convinced if the transmission was actually modelled correctly, the challengers would be much more pleasant to play.
4 Likes
Yes, not only it has wrong number of gears (8 forward, should be 6, 4 revers should be 2), their ratios and selection times are made horribly, hindering mobility greatly.
Official Transmission datasheet.
9 Likes
Inertia is the main culprit behind tanks losing agility at lower speeds, compare a Leopard 2A6 to the M1A1 HC (they’re only like a ton apart), but Leo 2s inertia values are twice as high, and in turn its manouverability is much worse at lower speeds.
This was reported years ago, but Gaijin basically told us; “you have no idea what you are talking about” and ignored the issue :)
4 Likes
It’s a shame that Gaijin will only make fun of the British players as clowns. The copied and pasted Russian tanks are more powerful than most tanks in the UK
2 Likes
I wonder if the reason the tanks feel so awful to drive, is these gears.
If you try the challenger 2, it changes to 6th at 17kpm, 7 at 26 and 8th at 38. Lower gears go past like a blur.
What this means, is when you’re turning, the tank stays in higher gears and slows down like crazy.
I get why they did it, they are trying to make the tanks more reactive at low speed however I think it cripples them at mid to higher speed. It also means you hit a wall of acceleration at around 38kph and the tank has to accelerate to 59 in a single gear and makes them feel awful.
The glue thing I think comes from the gear changing delay. If you takethe tank into test drive to some grass or muddy area and do a 360 from full speed, the tank is constantly switching betwen 4th and 5th between 4 and 5kph, meaning it’s horribly sluggish and it never gets the chance to actually build up any momentum.
Just something to look into.
3 Likes
Here are the gear ratios
2 Likes
Unless i’m missing some key information here, the Staff Requirement 4026 specifies the minimum values for the expected replacement of the Chieftain MBT. It does not however, specify specific values of protection for Challenger 2, so the document can’t be used to determine the levels of armor on the final product, just the minmum.
The LFP is 70mm, though i’ve been completely unable to find where that figure came from, or any sources corroberating it. It’s a point that needs to be looked into further at the very least, as only 7CM of armor for a LFP is weak, even by british armor design.
Gaijin have repeatedly stated that they do not balance based on tank performance, armor, etc, but on ammunition and factors outside the vehicles abilities. It’s a bug.
It’s the minimum requirements for Chieftains replacement, not Challenger 2’s performance.
2 Likes
Cheers man :9
1 Like
I’ve tagged this thread right at the top of the main one as well, and if I get a chance this evening, i’ll go through an update that bug list, i’ve been neglecting it the past few weeks.
2 Likes
Appreciate the support everyone. I really feel like we should be shooting to cultivate a back and forth conversation with the developers and show them that they’re a part of our community too, and that we genuinely care and wish to help this game be its best.
We’re all shooting for the same goal, and all on the same team here, the key to making anything like this work, is just communication. Hoping @Smin1080p or @Stona_WT can help with relaying our messages and concerns here and hopefully starting a dialogue or at least some comment from the developers on the matter, a little more comprehensive than just “it’ll be fixed when it’s fixed”. Some genuine comment or care in a statement would go a long way.
5 Likes
Okay
There is certainly a lot more going for SRL being what CR2 ended up being rather than “buff it becauser I think it’s underperforming”.
1 Like
Minumium 700mm huh?
Our charm 3 is doing rather poor
12 Likes
Brits also used to test their APFSDS at excessive angles (see CHARM being tested at like 74.9 degrees rather than 60 degrees like other nations).
Don’t ignore DM43 underperforming in the chart by like 15% either :)
3 Likes
I’ve just recorded a couple of videos showing what I mean about the gear shifting crippling the challenger at low speed.
The challenger 2, at “reference” in test drive :
The t-72AV at “reference” in test drive :
Here is the challenger DS, a tank is has far better mobilty and doesn’t have the gear switching stutters :
You see how the challenger keeps changing up and down, resulting in a jerky movement and it just not being pleasant to drive? That’s what I mean
12 Likes
Again, the requirements are minimums for Chieftians replacement, not specification goals for Challenger 2.
There’s nothing here to conclusively say CR2 underperformed in these goals, overperformed or met the minimum.
It’s just design ambitions which don’t tell us much.
Also I hope these this document has an official declassification…
1 Like
Chieftain replacement WAS the Challenger 2.
These screenshots were posted on the forum before fyi :)
And again, this is much better than saying “it underperforms”.
1 Like