Me watching a German main saying the CR3 TD is better then Leopard2AV7
6 Likes
3 Likes
absolutely dreaming XD
So since the update I played 144 games of CR3 in game(game file is actually uk_challenger_2lep and I don’t know why), with K/D 274/185. I believe there is no point to make British main player excited at first and then dramatically nerf it.
I played Black Night for 1028 games, 453 for 2E, 385 for TES, 579 for 2F and 332 for original CR2, here is what I am thinking about Chally 3 TD.
Non like other Rh120/L55 DM53 shooters, CR3 has a poor survivability generally, I believe in this thread people had already talked about how the new turret is poorly modelled and how they did not add upper hull armor which is obviously there, but also it is fragile especially during a longer reload than previous CR2 in game, in DEV and at the beginning of the update it has a same reload rate of CR2, which is 5s with Ace crew. I understand that nerf is because it sounds really OP and during DEV it is truly a killing machine against other new MBTs, but the point is how much we should believe match data from DEV when players may fight new vehicles in their much lower tier tanks?
And look at Japanese tech tree since Type 90, the reload the rate is 4s and its not affected by 1st-stage ammo stock, and there is slightly worst APFSDS compared to DM53 but way better than CR2 for a long time.
Is it really a necessity to nerf the reload rate of CR3? As a matter of fact all the CR2 are poorly balanced as those unsuccessful export version (2E) and technology demo version (Black Night) are having way better player stats on server than those are actually in service(TES) and selling prem in game(OES), as the ERA adding vast weight and adding not much more protection as it should. Also the thermal camouflage on 2F(DL2F), TES(DL2H), OES(DL2i) had never been functioning but the weight is still counted. Also OES add non better ERA to the side which is upsetting as the composite plates are added as 20mm structural steel.
Don’t get me wrong, I am glad there is new CR MBT being added to the game, but there is no point to add a better APFSDS then nerf the reload rate to make it non better than vanilla CR2(or for more precisely counterpart Challenger 2E), especially when most of the Abrams get a vast buff of reload rate. Challenger family in game is definitely not a tank you want to chill when you are reloading because its easily to get killed by just one shot and the reload rate is critically important to MBT with poor armor(at least in game).
Compare it with 2E, theres no fun of HESH rounds, not turret top 12.7mm machinegun(well it is what it is), no better engine(2300rpm is non better than 2700rpm), I am worried that player will not enjoy it after grinding it or even paying 9620GE to grind it.
8 Likes
In fact, I don’t completely agree with your statement. But it cannot be denied that the challenger’s armor is poor. But I think CR3P is still very good （ as a british tanks) . In the first week of the new version, my CR3P KD was 2, and now it is 1.72.
Overpressure
As the Top mbt the 3 should have its turret spall liner, I don’t care what that promo/showcase video showed, it didn’t even have a coax in that vid, there’s no way on earth it would go into combat without the liner installed.
3 Likes
Well, you just got optic killed. Sadly the overpressure is still a faulty mechanic
Despite being a different turret, still has the exact same protection, exact same weakspots, and exact same wonderful ability to get killed very easily.
(game file is actually uk_challenger_2lep)
That’s because the tank the “Challenger 3 TD” is modelled after is named in all official communication and official sources as the “Advanced Technology Demonstrator Challenger 2 Platform” as a turret proposal for the Challenger 2 LEP, created and submitted independent of the MoD’s requirements by RBSL.
1 Like
If any of you want to fight for the right name
Challenger 2 LEP (2019) Advanced Technology Demonstrator
Challenger 2 LEP ATD for short
Is a name you want to fight for
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do. Just no activity on my report from Gaijin yet.
gl with your report
1 Like
No it’s because initially the dev’s were going to name it CR2 LEP and the day before they changed their mind and named it CR3 P which was wrong.
Should’ve been the LEP IMO.
Hell even Challenger 3 is just a political name to make it seem like a new tank. The improvements between CR2 and CR3 are kinda comparable to that between 2A4 and 2A5 I don’t see why they need to be misleading and not just name the new Challenger CR2M (modernised) or whatever.
1 Like
After reviewing the video of the L55A1CR3 test launch, I found a problem:
This mantlet thing doesn’t exist in the game
1 Like
According to the two trunnion axes of the mantlet in the video, it must correspond to those two holes, but in the game the entire section is empty
1 Like
Yep it suffers from the same thing as Cr2, Too thin and wrongly placed mantlet.
1 Like
link pls