if the model wouldnt be so bad with armor holes and bad armor distribution
yeah so my point stands, its Leo 2/not Leo 2 rather than L/44 vs L/55
CR3 (TD) isn’t a Leo 2. hope this helps.
You all specified L/55, the Arietes use an L/44, so are not an appropriate example.
Come on man.
that was my example tbf, commenting on the wider reload/dart performance differences
Wtf that ones 11.7 I knew of the ones at 12.0 and 12.7
Still manages to be the perfect tank
Only the AMV is at 12.3, both the PSO and C1 with the WAR kit are at 11.7
DM53 is the only reason to play it.
However when you switch back to L27A1 on the CR2 you will hate it
Exactly Challenger 3 TD sucks. Its near enough a straight downgrade to the 11.7 CR2s in all but long range sniping (which is rare) despite being at 12.0. If it had at least the same reload as the CR2s, then it might be worth it, if not, its hard to justify it being 12.0.
With the M1A1s and M1A2 at 12.0 with a shell just barely weaker, with 5 second reloads, decent mobility and actual survivability at the same BR… The CR3TD just looks even worse
It was hard to justify playing even on dev with 1500hp and 5s reload because of the huge nerf in armour performance (it uses the old challenger 2 armour layout, but also lacks blowouts and has turret ammo so you get shot in the turret and die instantly)
Yeah… I have no idea what they were thinking even adding the CR3TD to be honest. Would have been far better to spend the effort just fixing the CR2s
2 Likes
I mean at the end of the day this is what happens sometimes they gaijin add technology demonstrators to the game
It is quite literally an unfinished vehicle in real life, no wonder it’s underwhelming ingame
For me the lack of blowout panels really kills it, the fact people can just shoot the rear of your turret and instakill you sucks.
2 Likes
dont even have to shoot the rear. a shot through the left side of the breach will do the job. not that blow out panels would help then either.
Yeah, once again in theory this is just an issue with the tank being a tech demo with unfinished armour.
The Challenger 3 production (and later prototypes) appear to have actual mantlet armour, will gaijin model that? I hope, but knowing the Challenger 2s they may not.
The removal of the TOGs system and backup sight from the mantlet mean is has no reason to be partially hollow like on the Challenger 2 now, as the CR2s mantlet only had empty space inside to fit the cables for the TOGs system to connect to the FCS.
5 Likes
CR2’s barely get any fixes that ever actually improve things with them. they get adjustments, but I don’t think I have seen challenger 2 get a feature or armour plate added to it since the OES was added, and that’s a push. There have been fixes added to the dev server in the past that have had huge positive feedback only to be rejected before coming to live servers. I can only imagine that Gaijin’s control on weather a chally 2 fix should be included is to look at how happy the British player-base is; and if even a smile creeps onto their faces, it wont get added.
ONLY MISERY FOR YOU.
I am in full ‘I fully regret investing any time into the british tech tree’ mode right now - this clip highlights how I feel
What is the actual point in this thing, I genuinly think the Challenger 1s have better survieability
5 Likes
Yeah… this thing is hopeless
Its like im playing an Ariete with none of the benefits of playing an Ariete
3 Likes
Adding actual armor to the gun breach would improve survivability of all challengers by around 50%. The weakspot is practically 2 thirds bigger than it should be due to it being hollow, not to mention the whole mantlet is stupidly elevated by about 4" making the drivers port shot trap even worse.
3 Likes
There should also be spall liners on the UFP and I think turret too
3 Likes