Tbh a blast door would be pointless when ot doesn’t contain a blast… They might just give it blow out panels
they seem to be functioning as blowout panels but the entire ammo isnt cooking off its just as shown in Devils video, just taking whatever rounds were destroyed by the shell.
1 Like
Unless they have decided to make the dm53 ammo inert like the 63irl but for balance reasons don’t give the chally 3 the round however keep the inert functionality?
im unsure but its a possibility, only issue ive had so far is i wish it had the turret spall liner like other Challenger 2s as they do a great deal to prevent you losing 2 crew on a breach pen
Yeh it kinda stupid it doesn’t get 1 tbh
I am willing to bet the blow out panel is in the same place as the original leopard 2s underneath the roof panel…
At the International Armoured Vehicles (IAV) conference in January 2019, Rheinmetall revealed its Challenger 2 LEP proposal. This has a brand new turret with the L/55 120mm smoothbore gun. Although externally the new turret looks similar to Challenger 2’s existing one, Rheinmetall has taken an existing Leopard 2 turret and comprehensively re-engineered it. Ammunition storage is in an enlarged turret bustle and below the turret ring in sealed compartments. Rheinmetall plans to use the same sensors, fire control system and BMC4I solution as Ajax. While Rheinmetall’s Challenger 3 certainly looks impressive, it is likely to be much more expensive per MBT than the changes envisaged by the scope of original Life Extension Programme.
More than likely to be honest, as there is a bunch of Bolts above the ammo storage on what does appear to be a single unified panel seperated from the rest of the turret (ie the Main chunk of the turret roof above the crew compartment and the Storage bins)
2 Likes
I just realise…
Hasn’t Gaijin implemented several prototypes ingame already, but also giving them additional features, loadouts and abilities, since “if they had actually been put in service, they would have included these features”? Like YaK-141?
And hasn’t Gaijin made semi-fictional planes, such as F-16AJ, based on what they would have been like if they had entered service?
Then… why doesn’t Challenger 3 TD get spall liners in the turret, following this exact same criteria?
Sure, the Technology Demonstrator didn’t have them on its first public showcase… but, if it were to enter service, it’s only logical that, just like any Challenger 2, it WOULD have said spall liners, would you not agree?
6 Likes
Seems stupid forit it be top tier and noisy feature them
T90M for me highlights what a joke CR2s modelling is. To get CR3 at all built off the same rubbish model is just funny. I just played a match against a T90M and from the side it is virtually indestructible because of the spall liner.
Why does CR2 / 3 only get spall liner on the hull top? No source xaxaxaxaxaxa.
2 Likes
Ugh… I hope we get as many fixes regarding all of these tanks, Challenger 2s and 3 and SEP and SEPv2 in particular, next week…
Soon, the developers will be going on vacation for Christmas. I hope we get as many things fixed as possible before this happens!
2 Likes
Zero chance of that happening
1 Like
They’ll come back after new years with a dev blog about how they had lots of thinking and discussion…
…and decided the Challenger series of tanks are maybe modelled incorrectly, but according to our statistics are performing adequately!
2 Likes
What does this model say really? So we have CR3 weighing in at 62.5t and T90M with all addon armours weighing in at 50t. Are they really saying that British engineers are such failures at engineering they would make something so inefficient. Like I mean seriously, what do they think we’re smoking over here.
Are they implying our understanding of material science is 20 years behind Russia or what? As if we haven’t the brains to create our own Relict ERA or something. Or is it more so just a case of NATO underperforming massively in this game.
If you gave CR2 / 3 full spall liner protection, buffed all forms of Chobham, get rid of the hollow breaches, buffed the pens of the guns, increased mobility, added neutral steering, made the TES kits better than useless… maybe then you would have something that resembled reality. Probably the same for the Abrams.
I’m gonna be a Russian main from now on though, ya know what they say. If you can’t beat em.
2 Likes
Funny enough there’s even photographic evidence of the US ERA having angled steel plates inside similar to the BVM side bags… But they’re not modelled on the Abrams
5 Likes
New Record, the guy managed to die with Challenger 3 in just 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Challenger 2 or 3, they’re still the same thing; you only play for the looks, but there’s no reason to have them, and as many say, Chally 3 is just a worse Leopard 2.
You call this a record? I left the spawn protection and got a bomb to the head
1 Like
I don’t really see the Problem here. The basic weight of the Challenger 2 is known to be about 62.5 tons, that much is a fact, so the CR3 TD being 62.5 tons is probably about right.
You’ve got to remember that the CR2/3 is physically a significantly larger tank than the T-90.
This ^, honestly its weight isnt a problem aslong as it keeps the 1500hp engine. like ive said before only real issue i have is that it lacks the turret spall liner “because its a Tech Demonstrator”