Yes but Challenger Mk3 have L26, too. If they think CharMk3 have L26 is balance. why cant Charllenger DS have same ammunation and go to 10.3
1 Like
Probably they feel good at 10.0
haha
1 Like
Why would it go up two BR steps lmao. Turms is 10.0, the challys at 10.0 should get L26.
2 Likes
thats because the players who bought it because its a challenger mk3 at 10.0 wouldnt like it.
Whenever gaijin has pulled such a move there has always been backlash.
Giving it 10.3 will allow it to see 11.3 in battles which is a pain for the general players of the DS.
but if you have L26 with 460mm penetration. It would be better even go to the 10.3 BR.
Cause ChalleyDS will have better penetration than the other tanks in 10.3. She could be easier to play with though it have no survival abilities. She could be a sniper actually.
But if challeyDS just have L23 in 10.0. Then you’ll find out she has normal penetration and bad survival rates.
And most importantly, the first Britain SAM is in 10.3, too. It could protect your teammates suffering from su 25k
1 Like
I’m a brit main with the chally DS and I would prefer it went to 10.3 and received the L26. Would go with the vickers mk7 and stormer then. The best SPAA I can use with the chally DS at the moment is the Za-35, which is not very useful at 10.0+
Besides, we already have the Challenger mk2 at 10.0 which, which is almost identical to how the DS is at the moment.
2 Likes
well cant argue with that.
1 Like
But British tank players have no idea about this. :C
You do not speak for all British players. I happen to love my Challenger DS at 10.0. I purchased the tank because it was at 10.0 so I would be upset for it to go up in BR. The Challenger DS sits at a very nice spot at 10.0 currently and it should stay their because it does not compare to the leopard 2a4 nor the Abrams at 10.3. I think you should play the Challenger mk. 3 and the Vickers mk.7 if you want to play with L26 rounds at 10.3.
2 Likes
Why not just play the Challenger mk.3 if you want to play 10.3? Why do you need to change a perfectly fine tank to suit your needs? When the tank for you want already exists in game.
1 Like
DM23 has slightly more pen than L23A1.
However, L26 is closer to DM43 than it is to even DM33 let alone DM23 seen at 10.3.
Chally DS has the same enough round as Leopard 2 at a slightly lower BR cause it’s slower.
first of all the TTD is trash, Ive played the tank enough to tell you that DM63 is not that amazing as everybody makes it out to be, you could replace it with DM33 and you wouldnt feel a difference, it has less armor then a Leopard 2a4, and the Challenger 1 has better armor then the leopards(im only talking about the turret armor since no western mbt has hull armor except the Strv122s), its mobility is meh, the only better thing it has is the optics but thats it.
I would pick the Challenger 1 Mk.2 over it every day of the week.
I personally wouldnt mind the Challenger DS going up in BR like the Mk.3 and receiving L26 since 10.3 keeps you from getting uptiered to 11.7 and you have atleast an SPAA with missiles, instead of cannons, and the Jaguar Mk1a with GBUs.
The Challenger DS is fine where it is and I wouldnt mind it getting a slight change.
do you maybe confuse L26 with L27A1?
L26 in the L11A5 if the Challenger 1 with 471mm of pen and 493mm in the L30A1 of the Challenger 2.
Its the exact counterpart to DM33 with 481mm in the L44 and 496mm in the L55, which makes them pretty much identical.
L27A1 would be close to DM43 with 564mm in comparison to 536mm for DM43.
Sir, flat pen doesn’t mean much. Angled pen is what we use.
L27A1’s equivalent is 3BM60/DTC10-125, M322, OFL 120 F1, m/95, CL3143, and KW-W.
DM43 is equivalent only to 3BM46.
L26 is equivalent to TAPNA.
L26 is superior to DM33 fired from L55, M829, 3BM42, and 125-I.
1 Like
Oh really? Didnt know that. SIR
(Warning Irony)
I just used 0° for simplicity.
Just compare DM33 and L26 and you will see that 30° and 60° are pretty close to each other and not 30° and 60° for DM43 (Especially fired out of the Challenger 1 and Leopard 2a4).
And yes the rounds you counted are all top tier rounds that doesnt mean they are equivalent to one another.
that I do actually agree with but that wasnt the argument.
which L26, from L11A5 or L30A1? because they have different performance as I already stated above, and no its not.
Mango and 125-I sure but not DM33 and M829, theyre pretty much on par (when were talking about L26 from the Challenger 2).
maybe you can tell me where you get these stats from because according to the game youre wrong.
Your lineup seems to lack anti-aircraft equipment, and the Chief Marksman at 10.0 has relatively weak capabilities. It means you may have difficulty effectively countering various armed helicopters.
The British faction doesn’t have AA missile carriers like the Ozelot, so the only means of countering enemy aircraft is the “Stormer HVM.” However, it is at 10.3 BR, and the VFM5 lacks TVD and has noticeably insufficient reconnaissance capabilities. Therefore, this 10.0 lineup is not as competitive as other factions.
Perhaps you can try the Mk3 Challenger at 10.3. With the support of the L26 ammunition, this tank can still counter even the powerful tanks of the United States and the Soviet Union at BR 11.3. In comparison, the 10.0 Challenger is not very powerful because its L23A1 is too weak, even inferior to Italy’s Ariete (P). Additionally, the protection against ammunition detonation inside the vehicle is inadequate, and its survivability is not good as well. The armor around the cannon breech is also very weak. Therefore, the actual strength of the Challenger DS at 10.0 is not sufficient. This is why I suffer from choosing 10.0 to research the British tech tree. (sad
I may have misunderstood you. But I would like to reiterate why I suggest that the Challenger DS needs the L26 ammunition, even if it means increasing its BR to 10.3…
-
In real life, there is substantial evidence that the Challenger Mk3 tanks deployed in Desert Storm operations were indeed equipped with the L26 ammunition. You can easily find sources supporting this conclusion, even on Google.
-
The three main criteria for a main battle tank are mobility, survivability, and protection. Compared to the equally weighted Ariete (P), the Challenger DS has poor survivability, insufficient armor-piercing capability, and weak mobility. Therefore, this package is not a very cost-effective choice, which may lead to most people being unwilling to choose the Challenger DS as their vehicle for researching the British tech tree.
-
In comparison, the Challenger Mk3 in the Silver Lion tech tree, despite its poor mobility and protection, has almost one of the strongest NATO MBT rounds at 10.3 BR. This is a significant advantage and allows the tank to play the role of an excellent battlefield sniper. However, due to its useless additional armor, the tank’s mobility becomes excessively poor. So why not let the lighter Challenger DS be its distinctive alternative at 10.3? This would be a good decision from a commercial, realistic, and gameplay perspective.
As a Challenger DS player, I rarely encounter situations where a single shot destroys a Leopard 2A4 because the L23 ammunition not only lacks sufficient penetration at 60 degrees, but its projectile is also very lightweight, resulting in limited damage. Furthermore, the internal space of the Challenger is very narrow, and any armor-piercing round that penetrates its armor can cause a massive ammunition explosion. On the other hand, the Leopard 2A4 has a large internal space within its armor, so even if hit by a shell, most of the damage is usually to the engine and driver. Thanks to the compartmentalized design of the ammunition racks at the rear of its turret, it is difficult for ammunition to detonate even if it is hit. As a result, the Leopard 2A4 excels in survivability and mobility, which naturally means its firepower cannot be too powerful.
So, what should be done to balance this situation? Naturally, it would be to provide better ammunition to the Challenger DS, which has poor survivability and lackluster mobility. However, Gaijin has not done so, which makes it difficult for the Challenger DS to compete against equally weighted opponents, and it has left me disappointed.
:(
1 Like
What you said is true, but I simply disagree with considering only flat penetration as the sole data point for a APFSDS. Flat penetration should not be the only factor to consider. You need to take into account the shell’s weight, penetration at different angles (60 degrees/30 degrees), and the post-penetration effects it generates. When looking at these comprehensive data points, it is evident that the shells of the Soviet Union and Germany are indeed superior to those of other countries. The data for shells from the British and French factions is indeed quite poor.
There is nothing to do with the issue of ammunition, a while ago I made a report so that they put the Magach 3 ERA on the M111 ammunition, and they directly closed the report saying that they would have to change the BR, which I would think normal to change them from BR 7.7 to 8.0. It’s as said before, gaijin use the ammunition to choose the BR, and instead of raising the BR to give them the historical ammunition, they nerf some premium tanks to leave them like the one on the tree but with less BR.
1 Like