[Development] Discussing reports related to the Challenger 2 MBT

Can’t wait until the next challenger 2 classified data leak on the forums, so it can be immediately sent to the funny looking building in Moscow and our reward will be another epic handout of challenger nerfs


Thanks for the feedback. Once the new model is complete, its possible we may review the situation again at the time and make another blog / post detailing the changes and the new models overall parameters.

We are reviewing and reading all comments. Sadly its not possible to provide a direct answer to each and every matter (as there are too many comments to respond directly to all of them). But everything is being seen.


How can one read a forum but cant read a document written in a non-cyrillic language showing the L27A1 pen, Curious


Thank you for time @Smin1080p we hope the information we provided will lead to some positive cahnges


In that case will we see responses to posted sources from users in the abrams, MANPADS and now this devblog soon™?


The document can be read fully. There is no issue there. As explained in the blog however, shells in game are calculated using a specific uniform system. Not raw penetration data: [Development] Improved Calculation of Armour Penetration in the game - News - War Thunder

I appreciate the response, and I’m not expecting responses directly from devs, especially out of office hours.

That said:

It feels like a lot is been seen and nothing done about it.

The source the devs are talking about includes a comparative analysis of the same test done with different darts. They show the CHARM 3 performing better than many darts which are in game that it performs worse than. The least I would expect is for them to make them equal given they don’t have “better data” for the test comparison they want.

The current ERA does not provide level 5 protection. I’m not sure if they are maybe testing it wrong or interpreting the angles wrong. I’ve also seen some people suggesting that the TES should have level 6 protection. I also don’t understand where the aluminium backplate thing came from.

Damage model:
They said they are going to refactor it, but this is fairly non-committal. I struggle to believe it’s as easy to penetrate the mantlet in real life as it is in game. I guess we’ll have to see with this.


The thing is, the values are made up by gaijin (as they are classfied). Primary source got provied, that stated the penetration in number, so shouldnt the values be tweaked to match the primary source?


That is because gaijin stated it is Armor Sheild R (Even tho it isnt), and it provides STANAG 6

1 Like

The developers have checked out the ERA and it currently does meet the Level 5 protection at the specified 30 degree angles within the sources submitted:

Smin, you know that it combines not only the ERA/NERA block, but also backplate, air and hull side? The STANAG 5 is only to the block.
And it says





Also putting it more eloquently than I would’ve.

Just to add a little bit more to the L27A1 thing. doesn’t the current penetration calculator rely on having All the dimensions and material composition of the round. something that isn’t known publicly? Therefore any data given by said calculations would be estimations? and then wouldn’t a primary source such as the ones provided in reports of penetration comparison be taken into account?

When hell freezes over

Just for my sakes, when it says “frontal arc” does that mean a 25mm APFSDS round should bounce clean off if it hits square on from 500m or from the front of the vehicle? (if that makes sense at all)

Currently there is no clear evidence that only the ERA brick itself (not factoring in the rear plate) provides level 5 alone. The developers currently base it on the ERA + Back plate.

I will elaborate in a sec



1 Like

Devil on his way to write a literal essay for Smin


ADHD kicking in, someone get him a coffee too XD

1 Like