It is in my report(s) regarding armor around the rack, but blow outs are not on the TD
1 Like
Do you have a source for the lack of blowout panels, or is it just that they’re not explicitly stated to exist?
There is no way for them exist, look at the roof, it is a one solid plate, also TD did not needed them, as it will not take part in battles where it would need it
Could the blowout panels be located on the back instead of the roof?
1 Like
That would be very unlikely. First gases tends to go up, second it was a TD, it did not need them, as it was never supposed to take part in any battle.
1 Like
So blow out panels lets go
kinda but not really, look at the video Devil posted above.
Im hearing yes and no ill look at the videos when i dont have crappy 02 wifi
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