Challenger 2 needs to be brought to developers attention

They said it’s not a mistake


The British must suffer

I will refrain from commenting bout it

bad news
Screenshot_20231121-113624_Chrome (1)

L27A1 as a consequence of being two piece has one of the shortest penetrators at top tier. it wont get any better.

While I support all these changes and hope Gaijin implements them, I cannot grasp what UK mains think. The Chally 2 is unfortunately one of the less capable if not lethargic MBTs of the 20th century. It has large armor weaknesses such as the lower plate (no amount of ERA/NERA will improve that) as well as the mantlet pictures clearly showing gaps with no additional armor.

Charm 3 is one of the shortest APFSDS in modern service if not the shortest, resulting in lackluster pen compared to the long rods of DM53, 829A2/3/4, OFL F1 etc. Its unfortunate but the Chally 2 will likely never have a dominant role in WT both for how it is implemented doctrinally irl and how its characteristics translate to the game.

Chally 2 is the result of the UK MOD refusing an import tank and it suffers as a result. Keeping UK defense jobs on the isles instead of partnering with a continental ally or USA.

Even if all that is true, and I dont think it is true as there has been plenty of evidence submitted to contradict that. There are areas that can be buffed.

Such as:

  • Changing the 7.62mm MG for a 12.7mm HMG
  • Correcting ammo placement
  • Correcting Crew positions
  • Increasing fire rate (current fire rate is entirely fictious and is a balancing decision not fact)
  • Increase ready rack size

There are also several missing features not currently modeled in WT. Such as:

  • Regenerative steering. Whilst yes this would improve most tanks, it wouldnt be an even buff. From what I understand, the heavier the tank, the greater the buff. It would help close the gap

  • Shell Perforation. Most, if not all modern NATO shells are designed to counter Soviet/Russian ERA. This is not currently modeled. This means that the ERA on certain tanks like the T-80BVM are entirely and completely impentrable. This is not the case IRL and fixing this would greatly improve game balance

But there are undeniable areas where CR2s are underperforming. The TES for example lacks the ERA to defend against an RPG currently. It should be highly resistant to AGMs and have a level of protection not far of the T-80BVM. It doesn’t. There are several areas of the CR2s armour that has been reported incorrect with evidence, such as the ammo storage areas (bug list can be found here)

There is also the wider issue to consider. Britain may have 5 MBTs at top tier, but that is basically all we have. Improving the overall TT, Including improvements to our other trees would greatly buff Britain in GRB without even touching the CR2s and the current empahsis of CQB is designed to only benefit Soviet tanks and IFVs. The few remaining long range maps, the CR2 does well on, but they are slowly being deleted from the game, so Gaijin actually making an effort to design maps more fairly would help greatly too

Britain is never gunna be meta, and we may never really be that strong, but I think there is a perfectly reasonable expectation that it should at least be playable. Currently they are not 11.3/11.7 worthy MBTs and likely need a BR decrease if they are unwilling to fix the CR2s


Oh no. Well there was an attempt

I will be honest. I do not want Cr2 to be top dog, flying around killing everything while ignoring the returning fire. I just want a competetive tank that is accurate to irl. And let me tell you, comparing technologies used irl and ect, in WT now is the time where Cr2 should be the strongest, stating getting outclassed by other newer mbt in the future. But it is outclassed now, meaning it will never have the time to shine.


You cannot deny that CHARM 3 is underperforming in game though. Multiple primary source documents state it is superior to M829A1, while in game it is worse. In addition L27A1 is a significantly larger round than L26, but in game both weigh exactly the same at 4.3 kg.


All of those sources also plainly state the requirement is in RHAe, which is not perforation against a semi-infinite steel block (hence why “equivalent”) with a thickness of +/- 700mm, but of a special composite armour that should be providing an equivalent protection to it, secondly, CHARM 1 was only able to achieve ~625mm perforation against RHA at an angle of 74.9 degrees, much less than that at 60 degrees (which is likely what we’re looking at for in that document, but if so, they’re underselling DM43 [which is what i’m assuming to be used there as a comparison]), and if that’s the case… how? CHARM 3 isn’t nearly long enough to give such a massive increase in performance over CHARM 1 against semi-infinite RHA, and it’s highly dubious that they’ve managed to fire it off at velocities higher than the French managed with OFL F1.

Additionally, if we apply RHAe requirements to all projectiles in the game, suddenly and magically, all of Wehraboo’s dreams about “muh 1000mm pen DM53!!!” will come true.

It’s obvious L27A1s weight is wrong per the statcard, but that’s a separate problem.

1 Like

unnamed (2)

L29A1 APFSDS, L26A1 APFSDS, propellant bag for APFSDS, cutaway, propellant bag for HESH, L31A7 HESH

comparison of L31A7 HESH and L27A1 APFSDS

L26A1 and L27A1 has quite difference in size. Funny that Gaijin weight same for both round


well as I uploaded right above, their size difference is not small

1 Like

Besides that, L29 is a training round, it isn’t indicative of how long the actual APFSDS is, at all;

I want to see it

But it wont let me

I would love to see the sources he provided, but they are not loading, so i cant lay my judgement yet

He’s quoting the British Army training manual for the RARDEN:

Thx, well, i guess it is going nowhere then. 3 sources with 90 vs one with 80.


I know, the picture above is just to compare L26A1 vs L31A7, because on the lower picture we can compare L27A1 vs L31A7. Still we can see L27A1 is much longer while having similar penetrator diameter to L26A1

Not really a bug though, it seems to be intentional.
The Leopard 1 chassis has three “steps” of manouverability/inertia:
1A5, C2, L44, A1A1:
Leo 1:

Notice how the heaviest one has the best manouverability.
Now we got the Leopard 40/70 and it has the same inertia as the Gepard, notice how both are SPAA.

For the Leo 1 it probably was a balance measure because it was one of the fastest tanks back in 2015 but I can’t explain the others.

1 Like