Not sure why you’re addicted to calling production & prototype vehicles fantasy while accusing others of being wrong & spreading misinformation…
We do not have any aircraft in game that were purely a technology demonstrator and never intended or planned to be fitted with weapons. BAe’s own website even explains these weapons were dummy, fitted purely for aerodynamic testing. The aircraft had no means of using them or operating them.
İn this case there is no production or prototype vehicle in here.
F16AJ was only mentioned on brochure, there was no prototype for it, kronshdath was cancelled before finishing the project so it was basically nothing but a piece of scrap.
You can either accept the reality or you can keep ignoring and keep spreading misinformation.
Tbh this excuse is really funny.
İn real life Yak-141 was never equipped with FCS and IRIST, not to mention it was never equipped with countermeasures or R60M’s but somehow in this game it became better then real planes on many aspects.
Oh lets not forget place for IRIST on Yak-141 was compeletly unknown since there was not a single nose design equipped with IRIST, so what gaijin did is basically fantasy.
3 Likes
In real life the Kikka, VB-10.02, XP-50, and Ho-229 were never equipped with guns.
Your point is irrelevant.
By your logic BTW all these vehicles are fake cause they use weapons they didn’t in testing.
All of these things were well documented and planned for the Yak-141, which we have explained.
Meanwhile no weaponry or systems were ever planned for EAP, because it was a demonstrator program that lead to Typhoon development.
M247 actually used its guns on testing and it ended horribly. Check your sources again.
Vickers Mk7 didnt use L26 amnunition only, otherwise gun was tested. Check your source again.
CV90120 did test its gun, you can actually find a video on YouTube. Check your source again.
Ariete AMW is basically same Ariete with same gun but with other upgrades but you keep this tank on the list if you want.
For other vehicles yea they are fake as well which i already told you on other topic but you forgot it of course.
İ get it you want be right all the time but you have try harder then this or you can try to surprass your ego and try to accept that you’re not always right about everything in here.
Until then dont bother me cause you’re wasting my time.
1 Like
İ think you got it wrong, i wasnt defending EAP situation i was simply talking about Yak-141 situation.
İn EAP situation you are right and i agree with that policy.
I said weapons, which include munitions.
Which you admit they didn’t fire.
DM53 wasn’t fired by Ariete.
CV90120 didn’t fire its top round.
They’re all designed to fire their munition, they just were tested with it.
They’re all real vehicles tho.
The difference between those tanks and F16AJ-Yak141 and kronshdath situation is the building process.
Those tanks you mentioned actually builded and some of them actually did test firing. İn F16AJ case there was not a single prototoype builded and tested, for Kronshdath it was basically cancelled before hull compeleted so there was also zero test had been done by Soviets.
İn Yak-141 situation prototoype didnt tested with critical equipment and hardware which is why it makes yak-141 actually a unfinished fantasy.
İ never admitted that those tanks you mentioned didnt fire their top rounds, only Vickers Mk7 didnt fire L26 as far as i know. Stop turning my words into something else.
Again you’re wasting my time…
But we do have vehicles which never existed in real like, and a example of this is the Japanese RY2Y Kai V3 but that isn’t much of a issue is it? Not to mention the fact the YaK-41 carries thing which historically it never had (even if it was “planned” or not).
I don’t see a bright future for British Aviation for a GOOD while unless Gaijin gets their game together, they’re willing to bend rules for nations like the USSR or USA but struggle to help the real nations in need like the United Kingdom, Japan and Italy.
If there is no future for the BAe EAP in War Thunder I hope for something competitive from Gaijin for the United Kingdom Air Tech Tree instead of neglecting the nation once again.
3 Likes
The R2Y2s were added many years ago when the criteria for the game were entirely different. They were based on the planned aircraft as armed. We have already said these aircraft are in line to be replaced if and when suitable candidates can be found and added.
Their existence does not mean we will introduce more like them.
Everything Yak-141 has it either tested or was historically planned to have. This is in no way comparable to EAP.
At this point however, this has no relation to the topic at hand and is wildly off topic.
1 Like
At this point I think the thread’s name should be changed lol
With that noted here is a Challenger 2 Clip that could apparently use NATO rounds. There is even a picture around on the Internet showing it’s altered ammo bin.
Many people have raised various issues regarding British aircraft in the comments below this post. Although those issues do exist and require urgent fixing, they tend to be numerous and off-topic, making the reading time quite lengthy. After reading their posts related to this topic, I would like to consolidate my response here:
- Some people argue that the Chally DS is performing well at 10.0 and doesn’t need improvements. My response is, first, let’s compare its combat capability with the other two main battle tanks at BR 10.0. The T72AV, for example, has been extensively complained about on the forums for being excessively strong. Similarly, the Ariete at BR 10.0 with its 120mm DM33 ammunition boasts high penetration and considerable post-penetration effects. In contrast, the Challenger DS faces weaker firepower, mobility, and armor protection than same-BR vehicles. Many Challenger DS players complain about its combat effectiveness against similar-BR main battle tanks, which is a tangible reality. Therefore, the poor performance of this tank at 10.0 is evident.
- Some people argue that the issue with the Challenger DS lies in its armor rather than ammunition penetration. My response is, I have indeed considered the possibility of Gaijin fixing the armor of Chally Mk2, Mk3, and even Mk3 DS. However, this appears impractical, as such significant changes would likely provoke dissatisfaction among players who primarily play other nations. Moreover, if armor changes were to push it to BR 10.3 and adding L26 would place it at BR 10.7, though I would appreciate seeing this (at least indicating that our Challenger’s armor is finally historically accurate), many would probably dissent. I don’t want to complicate matters further. Thus, I opt for a more conservative request - equipping the Chally DS with L26 ammunition and raising its BR to 10.3.
- Some people argue that having the Chally DS at 10.0 is more conducive to a balanced lineup. My response is, indeed, but if its penetration and armor are inadequate to deter Soviet tanks at 10.0, the overall experience would deteriorate. This decline in experience would adversely affect your efficiency in researching new vehicles. It’s not just against Soviet tanks; even using L23A1 against Leopard 2, you would find your ammunition penetrating and incapacitating the driver and loader, only to be killed in return. Additionally, M1A1’s armor can withstand L23A1 at a 35-degree angle. Why not try 10.3 if you want to build a lineup? At this BR, L26 has a noticeable penetration advantage, and you can even bring the UK’s first missile-based anti-aircraft vehicle, which wouldn’t have to face the top-tier AA at 11.7, and you also have two other 10.3 vehicles equipped with L26 - the ERA-fitted Chally Mk3 and the outcome of British-German LEGO collaboration - the Vickers mk7. It’s a win-win situation.
- Some people argue that the Chally DS’s ammunition penetration is sufficient and doesn’t need improvement. This issue has already been discussed in options 1 and 3 above. The main reasons are the poor post-penetration fragmentation of L23A1 and its subpar 60-degree penetration compared to other ammunitions. A comparison of ammunition used within this BR clearly shows that L23A1 is outperformed, especially by 120mm DM23.
- The administrators claim that the Challenger DS’s ammunition is for balancing, and Gaijin is aware that the Chally Mk3 was equipped with L26 during Granby. But due to balancing, it isn’t available in-game. Their exact words: “The shell not being present is intended and not a matter of historical accuracy (as shell loadouts are not based on this, but are balance tools).”
I find this hard to comprehend, given that Chally Mk3 in our sliver tree already has this potent ammunition and operates very comfortably. If balance is the issue, then Chally Mk3 shouldn’t have L26 either, not just the Chally DS package. Hence, I need further clarification from the administrators. - Some people argue that my request for L26 in the Chally DS is due to my lack of skill, a “skill issue.” They say that I should target the enemy’s breech before they fire and torture them.
You’re right, my skill level in this game is not high. However, the vulnerability of the Chally DS in the game is evident, and many people agree with this sentiment. Can you say all of them are incapable of playing Chally? Moreover, advanced vehicle packages are designed for newcomers to the game. Why should T72AV, Leopard2, M1A1 KVT, ZTZ96A package buyers not need to spend time learning how to play these vehicles, yet still have strong data? Is this what we call balance? Should British vehicle players be forced and content to derive enjoyment from vehicles that are blatantly less powerful than other countries’ MBTs? I’m not trying to turn the Chally DS into British Bias or anything; I’m just requesting a reasonable change to make its situation less awkward.
——————————————————————————————————————————
Regarding this matter, here’s my perspective:
Firstly, if Gaijin truly values historical accuracy, I would like to propose that the developers consider addressing the armor of the Challenger series, in addition to equipping it with the L26 ammunition. Numerous sources have pointed out that the “Chobham” armor covers not only the upper hull but the entire frontal aspect of the Challenger main battle tank. While it may appear ambitious, I suggest exploring the possibility of reasonably restoring the armor.
Secondly, considering the potential impracticality of overhauling armor due to concerns about realism and balance, I propose an alternative solution: equip the Challenger DS with the L26 ammunition and elevate its battle rating to 10.3. This adjustment could address the current issues and offer the following benefits and rationale:
Yes, I understand that you make adjustments for balance reasons. As you can see, the British tanks might not have as good of a balance compared to vehicles from other countries (otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many people on YouTube making sarcastic comments on the official Challenger series videos). Through my own analysis of the game and historical references - which includes your input - I simply hope that the official team can address the somewhat awkward position the Challenger currently occupies.
Historically, it was equipped with the L26, and in the game, the L26 exists and is equipped on the Mk3. 10.3 seems like a better fit for the British crews, with better match-ups and queues. Even without the additional armor at 10.3, its mobility would be improved. It seems like a good option overall, and I’m just curious, very curious, why the official team hasn’t taken this path.
This not only fulfills the premise of our historically accurate game but also mitigates the issue of poor protection that players perceive in the Chally’s armor. Moreover, it can offer this tank a sniper-style gameplay at 10.3, thereby enhancing the distinctiveness and playability of the Chally DS. This has the potential to boost package sales (by the way, if I’m not mistaken, the Chally DS is likely the lowest-selling package within the 10.0-10.3 weight range, laugh). Regardless, it aligns well with the interests of both players and Gaijin.
Finally, if the official decision cannot be made or isn’t desired, whether to equip the Chally DS with L26 and raise its BR to 10.3, I strongly suggest Gaijin initiates a community-wide vote to decide whether the Chally DS should take this path. This would allow the observation of the preferences of the majority of British players who purchase this package.
Thats all
Lastly, I kindly urge everyone not to overlook voicing concerns about the DM33 issue with Leopard 2A4 and the M111 issue with the Magach ERA series. In the future, I might create a new thread to invite everyone for a discussion on these matters.
3 Likes
The DM33 shell is pretty much about what the 10.0 ariete has got going for it. As its mobility is not great nor the worst but its armour is bad
1 Like
I ain’t reading alla dat 💀
My opinion is that the Challenger DS is fine and doesn’t need the L26, if you’re struggling with the vehicle it may be on skill I can’t lie.
İn this case why we should respect your opinion since you dont respect other people opinion?
Btw as an average player you shouldnt be talking about skill issues.
1 Like
I respect all members of the forums and their opinions, don’t see anyone as “inferior” to me. The skill issue remark I made was just a joke and never knew it would actually anger people that much lol.
I’m not delusional or not aware of the issue with the Challenger Mk.2 (DS) as I’ve played the vehicle a decent amount and have came across little to no serious need of a buff. I’ve been complaining recently about the decision behind the British Tech Tree recently and the only thing I’m not concerned about is 10.0 to 10.7 Britain.
Personally, the biggest issue with it for me, is that its not a MK2, its a Mk3.
The primary reason for the L23A1 over L26 is to keep it at BR10. That makes sense when it was added, but now feels irrelevant and unnecessary. There would be no harm in making the tank historically accurate and moving it too BR10.3.
It would also make the premium also a viable pick. L23A1 does struggle at that bracket especially vs the constant uptiers, which does make sense, L26 is the direct upgrade found at 10.3 and is meant to essentially last britain till the Chally 2 and Br11.3 which gets the next upgrade.
Combine with the mobility issues all challengers face and the likely ahistorical armour and the fact that likely Russian armour is overperforming (especially the super armour the TURMS has), and its a hot mess that leaves what should be a very good premium and bit… lack-luster. Can it get kills. yeah, but it can be a chore vs some targets when it really doesnt need to be.
2 Likes
I get were your coming from but that would just make the Challenger Mk.3 a worse vehicle, It was made as a stop gap until we receive the Challenger 2 and by giving the Challenger Mk.2 (DS) the L26 shell it would make it nearly identical to the Challenger Mk.3 tank.
It’s either the L26 is given to the Challenger Mk.2 and the Challenger Mk.3 is moved back down to 10.0 or the Challenger Mk.2 is moved down back to 9.7 without receiving the shell.