The vechile we are getting doesn’t have the improved armour or aps, it’s basically a mockup of what a CR3 would look like.
later models would have APS and a completely new turret with a new armour package
in this case they have said its the same armour different gun. the same armour that has been reported for years as very wrong and underperforming as well as inaccurate internal layout. all thjose bugs and errors are just being copied across. they are aware of the most first hand sources from the UK MOD, BAE etc saying the armour and protection improvements that come with the package and they have dismissed it as being too vague. ignore the source, copy the old broken armour. AGAIN
3 Likes
Itll definitely be more enjoyable but it still wont be a game changer. As it stands right now its a worse 2a6 with better thermals
Im surprised you arent promoting the DOA Premium CR2 instead of this
1 Like
Its the Prototype. Its a loophole for them to get out of giving Britian a usable tank.
3 Likes
It don’t really get how you decide which version of the Challenger 3 to use. At the moment this seems to just be one of the prototypes showcasing the 120mm smoothbore cannon on the Challenger 2, so it isn’t even the Challenger 3.
Also if you’re just going to be going for prototype versions of the Challenger 2 you might as well add the other Challenger 2 with the 130mm Autoloader shown off by Rheinmetall for the same bid.
The Challenger 3 that has been showcased by RBSL on media and tradeshows has been the version with upgraded armour, cannon and APS which of course isn’t what you’ve shown in this devblog. I don’t really get your comment on the main article about providing reliable sources for the Challenger series seeing as you guys have as little information as everyone else, most of what you make with the Challengers is completely made up anyway.
It’s hard to get hyped for another Challenger that isn’t going to be correctly implemented with more months/years of Gaijin disregarding all sources regarding real performance.
1 Like
Can’t advertise something that isn’t in game yet.
What was shown as the “Prototype” for the Chally 3 was the RBSL submission, which included all aspects of the BAE Black Night, and the Rheinmetal 120mm smoothbore. Note that the Black Night is already in game, and was part of the Chally 2 LEP program submissions.
If they are genuinely saying that this is the Rheinmetal 120mm solution, then it is not a Chally 3 prototype, but again, the submission for the Chally 2 LEP.
Either way, Gaijin are just bulldozing their way without any real data, real knowledge, or real implication of the actual Chally 3 prototype.
@Smin1080p - you guys need to either rename this to what it actually is - Challenger 2 LEP 120mm Smoothbore…or put the actual Challenger 3 Prototype in (which you can’t do as the full technical details are not public)
2 Likes
Mods just going to ingore this blatant naming error? You have chance to correct it in the Devserver and on the Devblog…
Don’t forget that the recently announced Rank VII Challenger 2 (OES) premium — coming soon too — will help you research the Challenger 3 (P) faster. That’s it for today’s blog, until next time, see you soon!
More Challys the better.
Hey. Challenger 2 LEP was the program that resulted in the RBSL prototype. It then as a result became the Challenger 3 prototype. So the naming is intentional. We do not plan to change it’s name.
1 Like
Hi @Smin1080p - This would be fine, if the tank you show was the RBSL design, but it isn’t. The RBSL variant ( a combined bid between BAE Systems and Rheinmetal) had the Trophy APS, improved armour, improved optics, uprated gearbox and the 120mm smoothbore. The tank you have shown is the Rheinmetal submission for the LEP, which only had the 120mm smoothbore.
The version with the mockup APS is a later version which is not representative of the current version.
The tank has been shown both with and without the APS. Right now, we have the version without.
Suggestion reports can be made with any evidence that clearly shows it to be incorrect and we can pass this on for consideration. However as of the current moment in time, there are no plans to change the name.
1 Like
Am I correct in thinking the black night has just as much right to be called the challenger 3 prototype as what we are getting?
My understanding is that they were competitors on the same competition.
I have to disagree. The RBSL bid, which was taken forward as the Challenger 3 Prototype, was the only version.
The Challenger 2 LEP program had 2 bids submitted; One by BAE Systems, which was the Black Night platform (already in game a we know - https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_kingdom_british_army_heavy_armoured_tank_uk/black_night_challenger_2_mbt_main_battle_tank_lep_program.html), and one by Rhienmetal which was a submission to either have the 120mm L55A1 or 130mm L30 main gun (of which the 120mm L55A1 was selected due to the wider availability of NATO ammunition).
We already have the Black Night in game, and yet you are stating that the same platform submission from another company is classed as the Challenger 3. It’s incorrect.
2 Likes
You are welcome to dissagee and as I mentioned reports are welcome. The naming convention is however not planned to currently change by the Devs as things stand.
It was an intended naming decision by the developers.
2 Likes
I don’t really know how you’re deciding what to put on the vehicle.
Surely the 2019 prototype would only have an upgraded turret on a Challenger 2 hull for demonstration purposes? But it doesn’t have the additional turret armour which makes the turret bulkier?
But you’ve also added the improved engine which I’ve only seen mentioned in the specifications released in 2021, but again there’s no sign of the upgraded hull armour?
The APS was also mentioned in the 2021 specifications but there wasn’t anyone selected to manufacture it so it makes sense why that wasn’t added. Although I will add that it has been decided that it will be using the RAFAEL TROPHY system shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1PX-pdyiTw&ab_channel=RAFAELAdvancedDefenseSystemsLtd.
On a side note; does this mean we will be getting the other proposed CR2 LEP from Rheinmetall with the 130mm Autoloader? Or the CR2 with the Hensoldt MUSS APS?
It was intended to name the vehicle incorrectly? Then what is the point in claiming the game is based on real tanks? We may as well throw all naming convention out of the window then, and give tanks whatever names we want.
1 Like