Id say british tank designers are absolutely genius. No other country in the world would develop a tank with such obvious weakspots for a videogame that gets released some 10 years after the introduction of said tank to service.
7 Likes
Well i think technicly there are so much weakspots in tanks in game that arent in real life, for example the turret ring in the abrams series its supposed to be one of the most thick parts of the armor against kinetic ammo because of its angles but ingame… can be penetrated with a 30 mmm apds, Ofc ant tank its invincible but for example the chally irl in the upper part of its chasis Can basicly withstand a los of modern kinetic ammo thing that cant do in game, (the lower part of the chasis its more resistant irl but cant take an apfsds) Sorry if anything i wrote you cant understand but english isnt my main lenguage :)
2 Likes
Nothing quite like the breech somehow creating new spall, ahead of the main charge, in a wider and more lethal cone than the original penetration
10 Likes
Challenger 2 service date: 1998
Leopard 2 service date: 1979
Abrams service date: 1980
It’s actually one of the newest modern MBTs
2 Likes
Like the round isn’t basically penetrating 2 whole meters of gun breech steel and should disappear In the middle of it
I think he means oldest in game(?)
Oh, true
I think engines do it too. It’s a really weird phenomenon.
As a sidenote, how come the engine firewall we have just… does nothing whatsoever?
Like has anyone else noticed if the engine gets set alight your crew and spall liners get damaged in the first few seconds, before you can even put out the fire?
Though “Abrams” is rather misleading as the CR2 equivalent is the M1A2 and not M1A1 that came out in 1980. M1A2 was about the same time as the CR2.
Same is largely true for the Leopard 2 as well.
Challenger 1 entered service in 1983 and is the equivalent to both the earliest Abrams and Leopard 2.
With the CR2 as a direct equivalent to the Leopard 2A6 and the M1A2
So it’s more like
Challenger 2
1998
Leopard 2A6
2007
M1A2
1993 or 1997 depending on which phase is more comparative
6 Likes
Leopard 2A4 is the era of the CR1
CR2 is the equivalence of the Leopard 2A5 - 1995
Again M1A2 is the equivalence - 1992
So the difference isn’t massive
At least I can attest that the Challenger 2’s turret can block some ammunition when its being shot at by an STB-1 and a 2S25 lmao
Like when you get that ONE map with a hulldown position the tank feels strong.
1 Like
Well, more like the Leopard 2A5 (1995)
But yeah
I agree with you, the British tech tree deserves better Challenger tanks, and the game company needs to fix these vehicles to the standard they ought to have. (This sentence was translated by AI, so I’m not sure if it’s entirely accurate. I just want to express my support—no other meaning intended.)
10 Likes
Ofc and talking about IFVs, britains has only this 10.0 sht and other nations got a puma, bmd and bmds, bradleys, namers, lkvs, Why dont just add Ajax that isnt that advanced ???
Falcon is our best IFV
Badger is alright but rate of fire hurts it.
Desert Warrior is terrible
3 Likes
Yea well using a 8.3 SPAA for ifv isnt quite fair when other nations have well… what the have
1 Like
I agree buddy but that’s Britains lot. Badger cannot cut it top tier although the optics and hull are great the fire power is terrible even at 9.0 that rate of fire gets you killed in most 1 v 1s.
BMD-4 and BMP 3 are a death sentence and any MBT with decent armour is hard to damage.
Desert Warrior a fatter sadder warrior with a better(ish) gun and if TOW-2Bs ever get fixed they make it worth playing. Terrible mobility and optics and the 25mm really doesn’t spall enough.
Falcon. fastish when it gets going, no armour, poor optics, small and 2 30mm death rays.
Anything flanked is just dead, shreds BMP and BMD spam
2 Likes
this is definetly the other side of the coin.
Its one thing to have the weakest MBT in game. Its another when our entire line-up is weak.
Finally getting a usable SAM, but no IFV, no Heli, No fixed wing CAS (that is worth wasting SP on) just sucks.
3 Likes
Yep and When you show Gaijin information about how it is in real life (like you did very well in this post) It just gets ignored, I made a post about the trophy aps not working for 9 ** months, the original report on Gaijin.net was accepted 9 months ago and still the same, my post has some replays, and like 2k reviews but it doesnt matter, Gaijin just ignores some thing when they dont come from a 200k content creator. The Chally Irl its very strong, the Merkava its the most armored tank in the world that mf weights likle 80ton but Gaijin just buffs russia and adds silent updates on things that russia has to make it better like the fckng DIRCM without telling anyone and without adding it to the other nation helis that has them. I simply dont know what else to say, im trying to keep this channel the upper part of the update topics for the longer, the better, But really, great britain needs love, the chally needs at least an engine upgrade or a ammo rack upgrade
2 Likes
The comparable mbt technically should be 2a5/6 and M1a2.
You’re being extremely disingenious with that…
CR1 was comparable to leopard 2 and M1 entry dates.
As it entered service in 1983 with the M1
M1a1 was 1986 i believe.
Leopard 2a5 - 1998 with very first upgrades being in 1995 so the 2a6 which is comparable to the later TES models of CR2
M1A2 - service entry date 1992 which is far earlier.
I mean they stated it pretty damn stupidely however you’re statement wasnt exactly true
1 Like