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.
The answer to cas in ground RB is to grind the entire air tree of that nation too then… Not exactly a solution really especially when you can just buy an su25 whenever for example, how many premium spaa’s are there?
They should give the chally 3 TD at the absolute minimum 1350hp. And they should give it 5 sec reload along with DM63A1 which it actually fired !!
1 Like
Good point. Gaijin really needs to chill with adding advanced stuff to air and focus on ground for a while. More competent SPAA is a must. I also think it might finally be time to add a ground only mode due to how cancerous these modern CAS are getting.
1 Like
I’m trying to make reports that change the name of the engine in the 3TD to the 6A and not the 9A since it used an unmodified challenger 2 hull, but I cannot get through to them.
They’ve closed my first two without reading, and the third one quoting this report Community Bug Reporting System which uses an incorrect source from 2022 about the final production version of the Challenger 3, without allowing me to point out that that source isn’t valid for this tank.
Do I bother making another report or do I just give up at this point.
This one specifically feels like if they’d not named it the Challenger 3 erroneously they’d have been able to figure out that the Baroness is not talking about a proposal to the LEP but is instead talking about the final model.
I think it was your report that got through regarding the CV12-9A and CV12-6A, so I just wanted to ask if there were any extra bits of info that you put in the part of the report that we can’t read that backs up the parlimentary question regarding the engine? (Community Bug Reporting System)
The production Challenger 3 will have a CV12-9A but the Challenger 3 TD is not one of those.
I’m confused as to why they’ve accepted this report when it’s talking about an entirely different version of the Challenger 3?
There is 0 things pointing to it getting any engine other than 6A
@Smin1080p sorry for the ping, but i want to ask about this whole situation. Ignoring the fact that LEP 2019 should have 6A, why was its engine power changed based on the engine that Production Cr3 will have? Changing LEP engine power in that situation is like changing engine power on for example Ariete P based on engine of Ariete (for the sake of this comparasion we assume their engines are different). It just makes no sense.
2 Likes
I don’t want a ground only mode personally i want spaa that’s git for the role, i don’t see how 20/30/30km Agm’s along with many fire and forget missiles vs on average 7/12km SAM systems is even remotely balanced, the missile changes to sam systems have completely killed any chance of hitting anything at those maximum ranges anyway, they simply don’t respond to input fast enough it’s ridiculous.