It could already go down by 0.3 and remain balanced. Nerf it and damn, may god bless whoever has to face top tier UK players at a reasonable battle rating.
Gaijin does already see it entirely acceptable for Brits to face 12.3s with 11.3s. I can see them seeing it entirely acceptable to have 10.7s to face 11.7s or 11s to face 12s in ground too
No, it was the minimum requirements for the chieftain replacement programme, for which the Challenger 2 was one of several different competitors (other competitors included the M1A2 Abrams, Leopard 2 Improved, and Leclerc). So the numbers represent the lower bound for what Challenger 2 protection could be, not necessarily what Challenger 2 was.
4 Likes
Were can I see the full page of this document ??
Its a little bit redundant to say that they are “minimum” because there is no “maximum”. Plain and simple is what was required the Cr2 to be like, exceeding requirements was possible (in that case, the “maximum” envisaged was 600mm KE but another primary source specifies that it couldn´t be put into production in time).
So, here explicitly Cr2 = SRL4026
In other words, in the sources currently available (and these are as good as sources get, primary from the country of origin with specific figures) there is no indication that the Cr2 protection exceeded the SRL4026. To argue for that we would need another primary source dated sometime between July 1992 and before Cr2 production started in 1993 specifying protection requirements higher than SRL 4026.
What source is this?
I wonder what CR2 ISD is ??
Also CR1 100 to 400 I wonder what that stands for ?? Possibly MK1 to MK4 are is it different batch’s of challenger 1s ??
CR100-400 were different proposals for upgrading the existing fleet of CR1 near CR2 levels (SRL4026 compliant) since the original plan was for CR1 to continue serving along CR2.
The 400 was the proposal that most closely gets to that capability. AFAIK CR1-400 was a CR1 with CR2 turret, CR1-300 instead had a “nerfed” CR2 turret and so on. Of course this all got cancelled with the decision to phase out CR1 from service early.
It’s not redundant. As I said SR(L) 4026 was the requirements the UK set for a tank that would replace the Chieftain. Multiple tanks competed for the UK Chieftain replacement programme (the main three being the Challenger 2, Leopard 2 Improved - what would become the 2A5, and the M1A2 Abrams) and were evaluated against SR(L) 4026, with the Challenger 2 emerging as the winner of the competition.
Saying that the Challenger 2 meets SR(L) 4026 requirements is not the same as saying the Challenger 2 has exactly 500 mm KE turret armour. For example turret armour on the Challenger 2 could (completely making up numbers here) have 550 mm KE protection. In that case saying the Challenger 2 meets SR(L) 4026 requirements would be accurate, but saying it has exactly 500 mm KE protection obviously would not (as in this hypothetical example it has more than 500 mm protection). Hence I say the numbers in SR(L)4026 tell us the the lower bound of the Challenger 2’s has, but not necessarily the exact value.
Also it is unclear that the protection numbers in SR(L) 4026 actually mean (I’ve been trying to find a copy of the full text of the requirement, but not had any luck so far). There are many possible interpretations:
- Does it mean no point on the turret frontal arc should offer less than 500 mm KE protection (in which case the Challenger 2 needs a mantlet buff)?
- Does it mean the average protection over the entire turret frontal arc should be at least 500 mm KE (in which case a hypothetically weak mantlet area could drag the average for the rest of the turret down - i.e. the turret checks are quite a bit more than 500 mm, but a weak mantlet area drags the overall average down to a bit over 500 mm)?
- Does it mean the average protection over x% of the turret frontal arc should be at least 500 mm KE (in which a hypothetically weak mantlet area could be excluded from the calculations, meaning only the turret cheeks are considered)?
- Does the full requirement specify certain areas that are exempt. For example “at no point, other than the mantlet should KE protection be less than 500 mm” (in which case parts other than the weakest point could be quite a bit more)?
Some of the examples above are obviously more likely than others, but my point is that the numbers by themselves don’t mean much without the context. It’s certainly not enough to do a report with; what change should Gaijin make based on it? There is just not enough information.
If you want an example of the missing information look no further than the required 350 mm KE protection on the hull. Presumably you’re not going to try and argue that the lower glacis should be buffed to 350 mm, because the requirement says it should have 350 mm hull armour? There is inadequate information to say what the 350 mm value means.
You could speculate that it only applies to the upper plate, but you cannot say for sure without the full text of the SR(L) 4026 requirement. What if it’s the average protection over the whole front of the hull (in which case the upper plate would need to be thicker than 350 mm to balance out the weak lower plate and drag the average up to 350 mm); less likely, but hard to rule out with the information available at the moment.
I was the person who went to the archives and took that photograph, so I am well aware of it, thank you. That page is an annex to a paper from the MGO that gave an overview of the history of the Challenger 2 programme. That table is comparing the Challenger 1 to the SR(L) 4026 requirement, the mentioning of Challenger 2 in the box with SR(L) 4026 is just to make it clear to the reader that SR(L) 4026 was the requirement that led to CR2, they are not necessarily the exact numbers for Challenger 2. For example penetration is listed as 700 mm RHAe @ 2 km, which is what is specified the SR(L) 4026 requirement. The real CHARM 3 round actually exceeded that requirement:
12 Likes
Something im confused on is you keep saying Chieftan replacement program, surely you mean CR1 right?
You will be surprised how long Chieftains were used
2 Likes
No Chieftain. The Chieftain was still serving alongside the Challenger 1 at the time. The requirement was to replace those remaining Chieftains.
7 Likes
Chieftain Mk 10 was put in service after Challenger 1 adopted. Challenger 2 was meant to be total replacement of both Chieftain and Challenger 1
I didn’t realise that. That’s pretty neat. I definitely wouldn’t mind the Mk.11 or 12 with TOGS and L23A1. I’m still adamant that the reload speed should be closer to 4.5 seconds.
You know what me least favourite feature on CR2 is in game?
The 30 seconds you have to spend per shot replenishing the ready rack. The loader manages to load the main gun with a projectile and propellent in to the breech in a maximum of 5 seconds but takes 25 seconds to move a single proppellent bag from one bin to the next. This becomes even worse once the loader is dead, you’re basically incapable of utilsing your fire rate unless you sit on a point to replenish ammo. Because strangely replenishing an entire new round is a lot faster?
This also applies to Challenger 1s and Vickers Mk 7 but those tanks feel more enjoyable where they are in other aspects. Vickers Mk 7 it’s actually very painful on because your reload isn’t even good, it’s on par with Rh120mm reloads but you still have a 3 round ready rack and a horrendus replenish time so you effectiveley have the slowest reload of any top tier tank at the BR. It makes absolutely no sense. In my opinion they should standardise it’s reload to the fast version, up it’s BR a little, get the earlier version of Vickers Mk 7 added with L23A1 to take it’s old spot.
6 Likes
For the uninitiated; RHAe =/= RHA. It’s possible for APFSDS to have obscenely high performance against a composite armour that in name, will provide equivalent protection to a semi-infinite RHA block, but it doesn’t mean the same KEP will defeat a semi-infinite RHA block with that thickness; fx, DM53 was required to defeat armour with 1000mm RHA equivalent (the myth of it being able to defeat 1 meter of steel was born out of this requirement), however its performance against semi-infinite RHA is much lower.
I included the DM53 part in because it’s important to the “buff muh L27!!!”.
1 Like
Yeh that loader is definitely an old school British union worker, GOD DAMN IT! I’ve given you 4 rounds its tea break time!! I’ll restock it ina minute! XD i can only hope they changed it to the chieftain style 1st stage using the rear stock rather than the 4 randomly placed on the turret side.
1 Like
ISD = In Service Date. In reality the ISD ended up being 1998
Well just like theres a statement of CHARM 3 exceeding requirements (whatever number number you wanna put there), you would need exactly the same to argue that protection capabilities exceeded SRL4026 requirements. Until then, we have to go with the already specified armor performance.
Even if we go with the “stretched” armor capabilities (600KE/900CE) it would still be a big nerf to the ingame Cr2 (should come with BR reduction, of course). So how can Britain be viable at high tier?
a ±20 degree arc of 600mm would be ample tbh, it wouldn’t be a painful nerf, and if we are remodelling, the improved mantlet would be much appreciated.