Is it me or is the breach/drivers port weakspot even bigger on the new prototype, looks like the lower half of the mantlet armour wedge thing is missing. Maybe it’s the gun’s elevation angle?
Depends how much the trials crew complain about the engine(the only remaining hope for that)
They could also be clever and make another prototype with the MTU to compare
This is what I’m hoping for.
Sabotage the engines so they all break down.
The MTU engine is not a drop in replacement for the current power pack. It would require a fairly major rear hull rework (the output shaft is in a different place for starters).
First of all, 2E was used for foreign trade, so it replaced the European Power Pack (MTU883)
The power upgrade of Challenger 3 needs to be traced back to the CV12-9A engine developed under HAAIP.
The CV12 TCA MK9A engine can be traced back to the CV12-8A engine used in the “Titan” AVLB armoured bridge vehicle and the “Troy” AVRE armoured engineering vehicle (in fact, they are exactly the same just to adjust the torque curve in the TN54E transmission system adapted to CR3, and the model is also modified to the CV12-9A engine)
better TN54E has already been test
Good news, there is armor here
amazing isnt it. its also the only one with those gaps. somehow that type of spaced armour must be special. instead of layers between the composite they just pushed the spaced armour to the side :v
well the type 10 is also very badly modeled as it seems. other than that we can absolutely see why the devs looked at it and have to remake the whole thing. if only in these 5 years they looked at it sooner.
this photo looks clearer in contrast, it looks like its a full block set on top of the hull. this has to indicate the interior is also changed
I’m not certain there’s going to be any usable documents that could get them to change this, but surely they can’t genuinely have looked at the “Challenger 3” with its entirely new gun and probably entirely new fcs said “Yep, that’s going to have the exact same gun elevation speed.” (neither tank has the horizontal drive or elevation mechanism modification installed)
Which, if I remember correctly, was copy-pasted from the Challenger 1 (now updated and faster) which was copy-pasted from the Chieftain Mk10 (now updated and faster)?
4 Likes
i got tired of that war in the old forums when the cr1 was first introduced.
I can see where they’re coming from sort of, at most the TD uses a lot from the 2 hell the entire turret in comparison to the actual 3 proto but I can defo see they’d need to change the elevation speed as the added extra weight
It’s the same with the Type 90 and Type 10, gajins apperantly just doesn’t care
TD appears to have the same GCE.
Do we have that on paper? After all the turret stayed the same weight, but it underwent digitalization (to be precise, due to digitalization the turret stayed the same weight, as per RBSL say) so it might have changed. Not saying it did, it is just a possibility, considering BN had new turret drive (but iirc it only added energy recovery from braking)
You can see the horizontal drive looks the same in both, unless they used the same casing in which case fuck me not a lot we can do.
Yeah BN should have better traverse but we just have no data for it, given it didn’t go ahead it could be worth checking with BAE.
That reminded me, im still waiting for the 2019 lep brochure, i guess i wont get it :/