because of this their BR is going up more
I wouldn’t be surprised at this point.
What part of “tech demonstrator” does gaijin not understand?
2 Likes
DM53, 2nd best round in the game, on a solid chassis…
@Hartsy1
Ka-50 is currently nerfed into the ground, not sure why you’d bring that up…
This change was also externally reported by a player. Not something Gaijin did on their own.
@花谱_kaf
Challenger 3 still fires DM53, it’s not the worst 11.7, and likely not even in the 5 worst.
First of all, DM53 is not omnipotent. It can’t change the fact that Challenger 3 is the most rubbish. DM53 can’t penetrate any enemy you can see at will. It still needs to carefully aim at the weakness before opening fire. Is it a solid chassis? That’s even more funny. One-third of the effective protection area on the front of the car body is only 500mm KE 11.7BR. Whose ammunition is less than this number? Even the most rubbish L27A1 has 564MM KE.
Since you like to analyze, let’s take a look at the turret of Joke3: hollow gun shield armor + ammunition stored in the tail compartment of the turret + no tail compartment ammunition pressure relief = British manned space rocket.
Even if you go back and compare the 120S of 10.0, you can find that Challenger 3 is garbage in 11.7BR, the same rotten car body protection, the same bad maneuver, but the 120S has 5 seconds to load a M829A1 and has a complete tail compartment pressure relief device, and Challenger 3? Except for the humorous DM53 and the “500mm sturdy chassis” that only looks good on paper, I can’t think of how it is qualified to dare to be higher than 10.7Br.
8 Likes
CR3 TD is now just as bad mobility wise as the base CR2s which IS THE WORST OF ALL MBTS.
No turret blowout panels (Because its a “Tech Demo”)
No turret Spall liner (Because its a “Tech Demo”)
Worse gun handling of all MBTs
5 Likes
And now also the heaviest of the non-Dorchester Challengers with the worst engine performance.
7 Likes
The reason i brought it up because this update agm’s are over pressuring everything with ez and gaijin in their infinite wisdom didn’t think to raise the spawn cost of cas vehicles… But why would they when they can continue to sell them…
Can they change the name to 2 ATD already, it never was 3 and it’s not like it’s worthy of being called the successor to the 2 anyhow.
Also this is just a general question, but does anyone know why they gave it a CV12-9A?
3 Likes
Probably going to be missed like my last one, but I compiled a little bit of info here if anyone wants to “I have same issue!” it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Lb9RjfLjvSOp
They still haven’t responded to my evidence that the model in game is a Challenger 2 ATD and not a 3 at all :)
I have no idea why you keep calling it a challenger 2. What we have in game is exactly the Challenger 3 Technology Demonstrator from 2019. Referred to as such by RBLS, The MoD, and the British Army. Designations change, and CR3 TD is the most up to date one
The Challenger 3 Technology Demonstrator, as shown off at DSEI 2021(with hastily strapped on APS) and PROJECT HERMOD 2 (see bottom image) existed from 2021 onwards, and consists of a range of hull upgrades, among other changes.
The one in game is the Technology Demonstrator from DSEI 2019, which is solely a turret upgrade proposal, without including the LEP requirement for mobility, turret was not even part of the LEP requirements either but instead was made by Rheinmetall indepenently.
This image is on the report, but I’ll put it here too:
Yes, designations change, but this specific version of the LEP proposal was never called the Challenger 3. Only when it was further modified in 2021 to cover more of the LEP requirements was it called that. You can’t just go back and change the name of the proposed system because it ended up having its name changed 2 years later when it had been developed further, especially when there is a different variant called the Challenger 3 Technology Demonstrator which was built later, unless you want Challenger 3 TD (Early) and Challenger 3 TD (Late).
At PROJECT HERMOD 2 (2021), also described as a Challenger 3 Technology Demonstrator:
Hell, even in the files it’s not called the Challenger 3:
It’s ultimately an entirely useless change, but I’ve never seen this variant referred to as the Challenger 3 in any official media.
That being said, I will entirely change my tune if I can see official media calling the 2019 demonstrator a Challenger 3.
2 Likes
They should give it the same 5 second reload all other Challengers have.
As of now, Challenger 3 (TD) is literally just worse than the rest of the Challengers.
Any shot on the left side of the mantlet lead to full destruction via ammorack.
Slower reload than the other tanks.
No turret spall liners at all.
And now, it doesn’t even have the mobility advantage, which I won’t criticise because it appears to be historically accurate.
But at least it should have the same 5 second reload as all other Challengers, so that at least it isn’t entirely a downgrade, but a sidegrade at least.
Also, all Challenger 2s/3 are still missingthat LFP spall liner reported half a year ago because they are “double checking it” or whatever.
And CR2s still have an artificially small first-order rack with an artificially long replenishment time, cancelling out the supposedly good rate of fire after 5 shots.
And CR3(TD) still has the old, outdated pre-remaster CR2 turret damage model and armor even though they already made and implemented a proper model for CR3TD’s turret in the past.
And CR2s’ trunnions are still hollow (the mantlet rotor piece isn’t shaped like that to be hollow… but to fit, you know, the trunnion inside the “hollow” parts!)
Like, seriously. I wouldn’t mind Challenger’s worse mobility if at least its protection/survivability and/or firepower made up for it. But it is not the case…
2 Likes
Well, no, as it is missing 17hp, and has wrong engine to be frank.
5 Likes
I don’t understand why they gave it 1500hp with the 6A and then 1200hp after calling it the 9A.
Their internal decision making is so confusing.
Because they based it on the HAAIP intended output, while deciding to keep name the same, and now they changed it to 9A 1200 based on the gov statement about THE PRODUCTION ONE.
7 Likes
CAS vehicles are tech tree, and they already cost a ton to spawn.
The solution isn’t to nerf CAS, the solution is to add SPAA/buff interceptors, which they did.
I mean is there anything saying the TD had any mobility upgrades at all? The LEP demonstrator had the improved turret tech but with HAAIP being separate it won’t have had them implemented, and to my knowledge the TD isn’t being used for trials so it wouldn’t make sense to spend time on the mobility changes (especially seeing as the TD turret currently lives on a stand)
Pfffffft ok mate, they’ve really been helping spaa of late lmafo
This is true. I seen people spawn fighters and kill all CAS with fox3’s. CAS got HARD nerf in this meta.