@Smin1080p
Do you think you’d be able to forward our concerns and questions to the development team? We’d love to have some kind of communication from them on the matter, or a statement that they’re aware of and are fixing the problems with the ingame CR2.
We would all just love a bit of transparancy, clarity and a lot more communication if that’s something you think you could facilitate? Cheers man
Hey
Naturally at all times we are forwarding feedback from across the whole community and passing topics and issues to the developers on all subjects across the game.
As with all modern vehicles, reports on them can be highly complex from a source perspective. Much of it is not clear cut and matters can take longer to review in full and provide answers for. So its not really possible to provide a full response to every matter raised as a concern for any given tank, as there will naturally always be multiple things raised that vary drastically in size, scale and scope.
Specifically reports on armour, due to how complicated they can be due to material issues, we have made a public news post about this explaining generally how they will be handled for all modern MBTs: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder
Its also for this reason that its not possible to provide a running commentary from the developers on the progress or status of this report beyond what we have already communicated. If we did this for one tank, we would also then need to do this for practically all others, which simply is not viable to do.
As and where we have significant news to pass of any developments, we of course will always do so. Equally feedback is always being collected and passed along, as are valid reports on any subject matter.
Fair enough, Bit of a shame we haven’t had more info on this since 2021 - Do you know if Developer Q&As are still a thing? I feel like this kind of topic would be perfect for a response from the Devs on the current state of things and to offer some reassurance for the future
We frequently have Developers Q&As.
Wherever that post comes from it is factually incorrect, CR1-400 did not become CR2. The Challenger 2 had already been ordered for production by the time CR1-400 was considered.
CR1-400 was a proposal to upgrade the UK’s fleet of Challenger 1s, by fitting them with production Challenger 2 turrets, so that they could continue to serve alongside the Challenger 2 instead of being retired.
And yes it is declassified as apparently you need to clarify that now.
He is however correct in that the tweet is not the original source for those images (I took the photographs at the National Archives).
I belive this is what the early batch of CR2’s Oman got however the hulls were upgraded with sand filters and CR2 components.
I think I might be wrong with this but you can tell them apart by the straight edge skirt plate compared to CR2’s jaged plate
Could we get a comment on the mobility, specifically the gearing of the ch2?
I get the armour, it’s ultimately guesswork on modern vehicles, but the mobility and gearing are gaijin decisions.
I have searched the bug report forums for challenger 2 and gear, and there are reports which are closed, the most recent from 6 months ago closed as “Not a bug”. I get it, it’s not a bug as it was implemented that way deliberately, probably to try and give the tank some more oomph at lower speeds howeer the ratios are messing up the low speed manouverability something rotten. This is shown fairly clearly in this video :
I guess what I’m asking is where do we go from here on getting this looked at? A bug report will be closed, so what other options to we have?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/poaIqrEphL7B
This one is already acknowledged
I saw that, but it looks more about the tracks, not the gearing.
I suspect there are multiple issues with the ch2s power train as modelled which all combine to make it’s mobility sub par compared to what it should be.
My issue specifically is with the jerking the tank does on the move as it is constantly switching gears due to the very short lower gears.
In the video it jumps between 4th and 5th gear, so ratios
That is a decent change.
It seems irl it would be 2nd to 3rd, but i doubt it would jump like that
Does this suggest the Challenger 2’s hull is lighter than Challenger 1? CR-400 exceeding MLC 70 but CR2 not.
CR1-400 is a CR1 hull + CR2 turret. So yes, it stands to reason that the difference in weight is due to the CR1-400 hull being heavier than the CR2 hull (as CR1-400 and CR2 use the same turret).
However CR1-400 would have included some upgrades to the base CR1 hull.
Edit: These are the CR1-400 hull upgrades:
And the weight:
No mention of armour change interestingly.
No mention of “improved chobham” capability either, I wonder if the design or mounting isn’t compatible with the hull
The Challenger 1 hull already met SR(L) 4026 requirements, so they probably didn’t feel like changing it for the sake of changing it.
Yeah, which kinda sucks, 350 KE with some being left on the table without the new armour tech is quite sad.
(Or, it already uses the new armour tech, and chally 1 got mid life upgraded, given it started at 300 in 1982, rises to 350 in 90’s).
It says A pack, not ONE pack, and it says “around” the drivers position, not Central portion.
We should just go to Jordan and ask them to cut one open for us lmao
