I mean then C3 TD should have better armor too, but Gaijin just copy and pasted over the C2s damage model.
Legit go look at the two in the armor viewer, they didn’t even change the Hitboxes, its still the C2s entire turret model, the only thing changed was the Mantlet.
The British will never have a competent Top tier until Gaijin realizes that bag charges aren’t compressed napalm nukes that explode upon being tickled. A hit to a SINGLE charge, in a sealed canister should not result in a tank full on tossing its turret. We should get a chance to put out the fire before it sympathetically burns to other charges, Which isn’t even possible, ill keep bringing it up, the Castle Martin incident, where the breach failed on a C2, and flooded the crew compartment with fire, but didn’t cause a single other charge in storage to burn, the only sympathetic burns were 3 charges left on the floor of the turret basket due to it being a training exercise.
A Mk11 with the better engine, L23A1 and thermals at 9.3 would be perfect as a foldered addition.
That wouldn’t break the Mk10 and add something for the ones that want a historically accurate Chieftain.
It works because people are too stupid to stop running into the Chieftain head first. If you actually had to use it offensively it’s weaknesses would impact it far worse.
The extra armor should be added if was actually a possible and planned option to add it. It’s similar to the M60 120S not receiving the 120hp engine. If the T-80B can get thermals, the Maus gets APHECBC-DS-T or the Sherman II gets APCR and APHE why can’t they add the extra armor?
Searching for chobham
Iirc, I think in official statements Its being deliberately not added purely to shoehorn it to fit at a specific BR.
Which im on the fence about.
On one hand, the lower BR is nice and we dont really need another MBT for 10.0 ish. On the other, it goes against their entire game philosophy and raises major questions about dozens of outstanding bug reports for other vehicles
This is just them being lazy. The T26E5 visual model still has the deceptively flat LFP while the damage model is far more angles. The damage model got fixed a few weeks after its introduction but the visual model is still the same 4 years later. Who do they hire for their models and why can’t they contact them again to make such a small change?
I would be fine with that but you KNOW they don’t give a shit and in a couple of months they will break the 9.0 lineup again and move up to the same BR as the Khalid where it’s completely outmatched.
I really don’t see how this is even close to the FV4030.
I don’t really think we need another MBT for high tier either. I’ve been playing a lot of 9.0 lately, and (opinion, not objective fact) high tier is more than fine with the chieftains. I only have a five-vehicle line up and I’m usually able to make it last between just the Chieftain Mk.3 and Mk.10 (Didn’t research the Mk.5). Considering neither 9.0 or 10.0 is starving for more MBTs, I think it’d just be better for the 900 to be added with its actual full armor capabilities (full armor capabilities minus a great deal at least, it is gaijin we’re talking about)
They do this too the British alot. VFM-5 had the option for 2nd gen Thermals. yet they won’t add them.
Churchill MKVIIs are recorded as using M61 shot with the filler intact,
6 pounder and 75mm APDS existed, but Gaijin won’t give them.
TOG II had 50mm of Rear armor, and the Frontal armor was 114mm, not 101. (it with 114mm of armor would be basically immune to short 88 rounds, which is probably why it never got it)
Badgers 30mm should have a 200rpm setting…
Olifant mk2 has a Front ammo rack in game that isn’t used on them. and was filled in with a Fuel/water tank on actual Olifant Mk2s, with a bustle rack being added in the turret to make up for the loss of the hull ammo storage.
i could keep going
Sherman II getting APHE is historical. It’s the APCR that should be removed.
Which is ironic, because that just confirms it didn’t have APFSDS. So, 8.7 then? Just makes the Mk 5 have the same fate as the Mk 3.
Also can i just say that the Challenger 3 TDs sights absolutely SUCK? Oh yeah sure it has alot of zoom, But you still can’t tell what range you are shooting at all.
Isn’t it literally just an L55A1 manhandled into the existing CR2 turret, with the bare minimum modifications to make it fit? If so armour should be pretty much the same.
Not a great example, given the fire incapacitated the entire crew. If we were to go by that example in game then perhaps the turret wouldn’t fly off, but all the crew members would be knocked out, so the end result would be the same.
That’s not how it works in real life though. The idea was that the charges should burn slowly enough to give the crew just about enough time to escape the vehicle, It was always expected that if a charge were to burn the vehicle would be put out of action (at least until significant repair work could take place).
This very much depends on the type of charge being used:
At the end of the day though, regardless of whether the charge burn or detonate the crew will still be incapacitated or killed if they remain within the tank. So in game a charge being hit would still destroy the tank regardless of if it burns or detonates.
Nope. the Video going around of a C2 Going super nova is from a direct hit from 152 HE from Artillery to its turret roof, detonating the stockpile of HESH rounds that the Ukrainian had over filled the tank with, as said C2 was on its way to provide fire support.
EDIT: Infact they managed to find the tanks turret roof, and the Hit from the Artillery round
That is also why the rear of the turret was blown out on the Left side, which is where the main projectile storage is.
read on. the only reason it was so bad was due to the 3 charges left on the turret floor in the open air, they burned off, and caused much worse damage.
Every single charge left in the storage bins was unscaved.
As for that, no. The turret is a new design externally, that has new composite arrays, atleast from what i know. the only thing the same between the C2 and C3 turret in the internal Cast armor structure, the rest is all new. And even the cast armor bit was reworked for the bustle rack.
Wouldn’t mind that one bit. Gives a more competent back up to go with the Olifant Mk2. Especially since the Mk11 also had some engine upgrades that gave it the tiniest bit more power. So slightly better mobility.
Although i think id prefer the Fv4211 for the fun of it, A Mk5 Chieftain, thats like 10 tons lighter, with Chobham armor? Hell yeah id play that.
And your proof of that is? The general consensus I saw is that the detonation was caused by an FPV drone. There is even footage from the FPV drone which shows it hitting the hull near the driver’s hatch (and pointing roughly towards where the hull charge storage rack would be).
A detonation of the hull charge storage would explain why hull of the tank is completely disintegrated. I would also note that you can see numerous undetonated HESH shells littered around the area, which you would expect given how hard it is to make a HESH round detonate.
So we have:
So that to me made the FPV drone theory sound pretty believable.
Is there even any proof that piece off metal came from the turret? It is on the ground and separated from the rest of the tank.
Even if we accept that it was an artillery shell hitting the roof how do you know it was HESH shells that detonated and not the charges?
Yes three charges burned inside the tank. However, do you really think the crew would be in a fit state to fight if they stayed inside the tank with just a single burning charge? I imagine they would still sustain incapacitating injuries. And how often do you take a hit in came that only damages a single charge? I’m sure it happens, but most hits will damage at least two or three charges, meaning the end result will be pretty much what you saw at Castle Martin.
At the end of the day nothing you’ve said can get around the fact that:
