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
11 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
Did you really use wikipedia?
Also, think about it like this;
CHARM 3 - 700mm (how?)
M829A1 - 690mm (pretty much spot on according to L-O)
DM43 - 605mm (how? what angle? what target?).
British used to test their APFSDS against worse quality steel than the Germans for example, and also used to overinflate them by testing at much higher obliquites.
Wasnt that a Cr1?
2 Likes
Yes, that is the only thing i can find in a 2 min search
The design documents you shared were likely created BEFORE the CR2 likely even reached the drawing board (maybe during). Whilst it certainly is good material to have, and so thank you for sharing it. It needs to be taken with a pinch of salt
1 Like
No, Challenger 1 was a replacement for the MBT-80 which ultimately failed. SRL 4026 is dated to 1989, years after the Chally 1 entered service.
1 Like
Chieftain was superseded by Challenger 1, Then there was CR1 Mk1, Mk2, Mk3, etc, and then CR2 was the replacement.
Again though, in a vaccum - This document doesn’t reference the actual end values of CR2, but outlines criteria. I get where you’re going with this, but it’s a bit of a moot point when it lacks information on CR2’s end result or development.
You definitely can’t point at the document and say “this is what CR2 has”. You could only really go as far as "This is the minimum value CR2 has.
2 Likes
It’s dated to 1989 if I remember correctly, production for the Chally 2 officially started in 1992 (but it then failed reliability trials), so they had 3 years. Afaik prototypes were already being built by the time SRL 4026 was created.
I guess i will keep that from here