I was never arguing that the Challenger 2 exceeded the Leopard 2.
The LOS is in RHA, if materials that exceed RHA equivelant protection are used it is still totally possible to hit or slightly exceed 500mm effective. Even with RHA, achieving 500mm accounting for normalisation from 630mm LOS is possible.
I calculated the LOS for you earlier:
CR3 base = ~300mm + 150/200mm addons
450 mm → LOS ≈ 450 / cos61° ≈ 928.2 mm
500 mm → LOS ≈ 500 / cos61° ≈ 1031.3 mm
So assuming the addon thicknesses we seem to agree on, the LOS is somewhere between ~930 and ~1030mm, not ~800mm for the CR3. So not that much thinner, it’s comparable to the Leopard 2.
Sure you may lose some effective thickness to normalisation, but you also stated the Leopard’s hull is slightly less than 1000mm LOS.
This states >600mm KE for the D-Tech armour, yes it does state 650mm elsewhere, but we do have two different figures. Therefore I think its better to assume an effective thickness of 600-650mm rather than 650mm.
Going back to our original argument. If both offer around 900-1000mm of LOS thickness, so its not unreasonable to say the CR3 could match the most modern Leopards in terms of hull armour.
5 degrees normalisation is reasonable (on the higher end) for a modern APFSDS,
If we assume the Challenger 3 UFP is 1030mm LOS, then you’d get an effective angle of 56 degrees and an effective LOS of 894mm accounting for normalisation. This could be lower depending on the addon thickness.
Apply the 5 degrees normalisation to the 1000mm for the Leopard at 53 degrees (now 48) you get around 900mm LOS, but you said the 1000mm was likely an overestimate, so it could also be lower.
So both could reasonably be around 900mm of LOS accounting for normalisation.
It should be noted, that 3rd generation armor package as planned & developed at the time was to be fully internal and did not include the later add-on modules defining the shape of the later Leopard 2 models.
However the Leopard 2 Improved as offered to the UK did seem to have some sort of wedges on the turret:
British documents put the turret protection of the Leopard 2 Improved they were offered as 650 mm KE. Before being offered the Leopard 2 Improved they were offered a Leopard 2A4 with fully internal D-Tech armour modules (which appears to be what the post is referring to), and they said it was designed to offer 600 mm KE (though with D-Tech being early in development the Germans had only been able to demonstrate 420 mm KE).
So the impression I had is that a Leopard 2 with internal D-Tech had up to 600 mm KE protection, and whatever wedges they had at that point (not necessarily the final ones) increased that up to 650 mm. Are you able to provide any insight?
This “proposal” looks more like a separate IBD development rather than KM’s, judging by the similarities between it and the later Leopard 2RI/PL, etc.
Germans had only been able to demonstrate 420 mm KE
That was C-technology.
So the impression I had is that a Leopard 2 with internal D-Tech had up to 600 mm KE protection, and whatever wedges they had at that point (not necessarily the final ones) increased that up to 650 mm.
Wedges were added during the definition phase as a way to “lighten” the vehicles for Germany’s fleet of 699 MBTs that could still match D-technology’s armor levels but without the need to change the internal armor modules.
The design aim was 600 mm KE. In trials it well 20-30% short of the design aim. That get’s you a protection value of 420 - 480 mm KE. Obviously that was early in development so they may have achieved the full design aim by the time D-Tech was finished, but that’s not really related to my point.
My point is that the post claims that the design aim of 650 mm KE is for purely internal D-Tech turret armour. However all previous information (including the image they used in their own post) has started 600 mm KE was the design aim for internal D-Tech armour (not 650 mm). We do however know that Britain was offered a Leopard 2 with some sort of external armour on it, that had 650 mm KE turret protection. So that to me would imply that the document saying 650 mm KE includes some sort of external armour rather than referring to purely internal D Tech.
Because that’s what the BMVg stated it must achieve. It is likely they lowballed it for the British, as the person who actually acquired those documents, has confirmed that the vehicle achieved British requirements.
We do however know that Britain was offered a Leopard 2 with some sort of external armour on it, that had 650 mm KE turret protection.
It was this:
The post I shared doesn’t even have everything that I do.
So that to me would imply that the document saying 650 mm KE includes some sort of external armour rather than referring to purely internal D Tech.
It doesn’t. I have other parts of it and can confirm it was a purely internal armor.
Yes I’ve seen that picture before and it quite clearly has external armour giving it the triangle shape on the front of the turret. So if the 650 mm KE protection figure applies to that then it would be reasonable to conclude that purely internal D-Tech without the triangle shape on the front offers less than 650 mm KE.
The other option is that the 650 mm KE protection figure Britain was given is incorrect and the tank in that configuration provides more than 650 mm KE. However someone else has informed me that the tank in that image is indeed the configuration that achieved 650 mm KE.
I hadn’t played with the Challenger 3 thinking it would be bad, but I started grinding its stock modules and the tank is simply concentrated garbage juice. It’s heavy and moves slowly as if it had good armor, but it doesn’t stop any shots. The good ammunition is all the way at the last line, and I couldn’t even reach it because it requires so much RP. I have the Italian Ariete, which is way better since it actually has decent mobility. Basically, playing with the stock Challenger 3 means having the worst gun/penetration, the worst mobility, and the worst armor among high-tier tanks.
Worse survivability (no turret spall liners + ammo in turret)
Worse firepower (longer reload)
The mobility honestly somehow feels worse than the Black Night, despite the 3TD being lighter.
The armour is worse as the mantlet armour is even worse, everything else is the same.
The ammo in the turret is the worst thing for me. In the CR2 your mantlet is shit, but at least if you get shot there you usually just lose a crew member or two. In the CR3TD if they shoot the right side, you just die instantly. If someone sees your side turret, they can just shoot the rear and blow up the ammorack which has no blowout panels.
The good optics aren’t enough to make it good, the 2E and the BN have just as good optics with actually useful upgrades like a good engine and amazing APS.
Right now the Black Night is in quite a good spot as its APS lets it avoid the LMUR spam to a degree, so I’ve been enjoying it quite a lot. However, if I need to spawn a third tank after the BN and 2E its either the standard Challenger 2 or the Vickers Mk.7, I don’t even consider the 3TD.
Yeah, I gave up on it as it’s just modelled in a way which makes it utter crap sadly.
It should never have been added but seeing how they can’t even be bothered to fix it having the wrong damage model, it’s clearly not a priority to fix.
It doesn’t make sense at all. Or do you want to say that they “nerf” cr3 to please the russians and support ‘‘russian tank not junk’’ agenda, but at the same time introduce 2a7 with similiar firepower, which is much better than cr3 will ever be?
Us Brit mains don’t whinge and complain like the Germans, Americans, Russians (but they never get properly nerfed) and the Chinese, we have more sense but that is also our prime reason for failure, we just aren’t loud and annoying enough
Not in the same way but most Brit mains are also Teeaboos that are more worried about their feelings than getting the few things us Brit-mains have, fixed but the slug
