Challenger 2’s turret cheeks have 900-950 mm’s of KE protection but at the mantlet they have 450 mm’s of KE protection IRL. Yeah, game doesn’t have the exact values but we have the same issue at ammunition too. Let’s be honest Challenger 2’s mantlet armors are too wide which is a weak spot and It can be penetrated easily with any modern APFSDS’s.
Here is a realistic KE and CE protection of Challenger 2’s: Screenshot by Lightshot
Here’s a fix for the CR2
And what’s that based on?
Steelbeasts.
Or, if you like it more;
“It was revealed to me in a dream”.
Nah
aint the green one a chally 1 ?
CR1 and CR2 have the same internal armour pockets for hull armour; the former was measured at 609mm (precise number btw!), so for the hull to range from ~700 to ~1000mm is nigh impossible on CR2 (or are the Brits breaking the laws of physics now?).
Yes, but they use the same armour pockets for the hull.
Yes, you are probably right about thickness that part but as you can see from the photo, KE effectiveness is 600 mm.
It must be a mistake.
That effectiveness is based on wishes and tea kettle whistling, nothing about it is official or even reliable.
To get ~600mm RHAe KE out of an armour with a thickness of 609mm (0.985 efficiency per mm), it would have to be made nearly entirely out of pure steel (which would completely tank its CE effectiveness), if we look at armours of other Western countries, at the time most of them ranged from 0.6 to 0.75 - 0.8 in terms of effectiveness per mm, and a lot of them had a lot more room to work with (M1 Abroomz sitting at ~700mm of armour depth, Leopard 2 sitting at ~710mm of armour depth etc), none of them achieved what’s claimed there (i.e ~600mm of RHAe KE protection). Turret of course is a completely different matter tho.
Logically, that armour protection value would require the use of pure Stalinium blessed by the Queen herself (who knows tho, maybe that did happen /s).
What year is the armor diagram you shared from because the photo I shared from 2018?
That photo is irrelevant. It doesn’t present any useful information.
What’s the source of this scheme?
yep, 25mm + 200mm “composite” + 70mm, giving around 350mm KE on CR1
Well I hate to be “that guy” but the series of primary sources made public lately fully disclose Cr2 protection requirements and they should lead to a very important nerf to the ingame Cr2 armor both in turret and hull. I know it sucks but it is what it is.
Question is what are the options going forward to make UK minimally viable at top tier? It could be argued that the more advanced modifications of Cr2 may be modelled with the “improved armor” on the turret front (600mm KE / 900mm KE) but this would hardly make a difference (and not supported by the sources).
On the other hand, using the same sources to get an improvement to L27 penetration is a no go since Gaijin changed the criteria years ago for the projectiles, using formulas to estimate performance instead of sources.
It’s not just armour issues. There are a number of outstanding bugs and issues that could be fixed that would buff the CR2.
Even relatively minor things such as swapping the 7.62mm turret for a 12.7mm would be pretty major improvement.
But there are also areas of improvement that would nerf other nations, such as shell perforation that would heavily mitigate the T80BVMs ERA, that is not currently modeled. This leads to assymtrical advantages.
But Britain is not just weak because of the CR2. It’s weak due to overall TT issues and poor map design. I don’t think Britain will ever be good, but it doesn’t need to be quite so unplayable as it is currently
Is that the whole TL:DR or am I missing something?
