[Development] Discussing reports related to the Challenger 2 MBT

…how did they get that wrong?

So it should be a different ERA with STANAG level 5? Which it currently still doesn’t get in game?..


yeah shame too many words = nuh uh source incorrect

at this point it feels like purposeful misinterpretation of data.

That or its horrible translation errors. however my money is on the former.

1 Like

Ok, so as we can see on the Brochure

It talks about hybrid add on armor that combines reactive and passive elements, so something like that
It never talks about any backplate. And as it can be seen, it can be aplied to multitude of things, such as APCs, IFVs and MBTs. If the STANAG 5 protection was achieved only with help of 40mm backplate, it would had to be stated. If that is the case, and it is not stated, the company would be making false advertisement, and could be held responsible for loss of human life, in case of a war scenario it would fail to protect against threat corresponding to the STANAG 5.
If ASPRO-HMT was made specially for the Cr2 TES, it would be understandable, but it is not stated anywhere, rather the oposite, it is made for multitude of vehicles.
Also talking about Cr2 backplate
Challenger 2 with Dorchester Level 2G armor package, where you can see the backplate, in combination with VARMA block(it is not the marked one, the marked one is 200mm block, VARMA is on top, and it is the same thing that can be found on Dorchester level 2E and 2F, and it is also underpreforming, but i already made a report about it so not gonna elaborate about it). So the backplate was not made with ASPRO-HMT in mind.
Hope that clears it out.


@Smin1080p Is there any new info from the devs regarding the Abrams. Are they still considering m829a3 or planning on fixing the many bug reports sent to them?


@Smin1080p Too bad another blog is taken from guesstimate and don’t even guarantee a protection increase, QoL changes in using such tank or something like that. You keep regretting sources still and probably don’t even stare on how much issues is going with Chally 2/3 not even mention Abrams and Leopards. I have a question. Alongside Challenger damage model revamp are you gonna announce the same for other tanks as well? You said about Leopards but maybe Abrams will get one too? Anyway another devblog with not much to say more, people are again mad at you, shame.


Moving backwards from a source and being wrong is better than moving forward with your own calculations and being wrong.

Yes, devs think it is
While it is

So at this point it IS poor translation OR purposeful misinterpretation of sources provided to fit their narrative. because I for one see no mention of any back plate or anything like that in the brochure for their product.


Yea, something like that

Yeah, it looks like you can bolt it right onto the hull in those pictures. So it should be the STANAG L5 add-on blocks, then the backplate, then the Challenger hull armor.

Not whatever Smin is talking about where its STANAG L5 when you add in the armor blocks, backplate, and hull.

1 Like

Is that just from the ERA though? Or is the ERA slowing it and something else behind stopping it?

1 Like

Logically that makes no sense for it to receive that level classification they would have had to have tested it on firing range with a challenger 2s backplate installed… Doesn’t really make sense when this is designed to be mounted to multiple different vehicles using totally different backplates/mounting methods. The +backplate argument is a reeeeach? This unit alone offers that level of protection otherwise its would state that on the brochure for legal reasons.

1 Like

The backplate argument falls apart when DL2G enters the chat
backplate was there before ASPRO ever touched Cr2, so the backplate was not made with ASPRO in mind


And what I can say is I’m more inclined to believe a Multi Billion dollar defence company who has to undergo RIGEROUS testing under the western standards of quality. NOT RUSSIAN QUALITY

when they say that “this armour addon gives us this much protection” over a Russian dev company that most of its armed forces rely on western imports they cannot have now. to make their modern equipment. and has still yet to show us where their mythical sources come from.

Honestly I’m surprised their isn’t a source index for where they get their values from. but then again that would destroy the narrative they have.


Didn’t even need that for it to fall apart… The brochure doesn’t mention a backplate anywhere? Literally anywhere… The unit itself offers the protection… Nothing else to discuss.


Sure sure. When are you going to acknowledge that since you don’t have access to the classified documents you’re basically just making this all up?


So, what do we do about the fact that the clear evidence you need is all classified?


Just like there is no evidence that it is with backplate included, and there never will be. The plate existed before ASPRO, there is 0 mention of it in brochure, and is must be included for legal reasons etc.


It’s fine… Bla bla bla backplate bla bla bla T72 has wet storage lmao… Honestly the MOD could email gaijin directly and it still wouldn’t get changed. No matter how much information is put in front of them they’ll still find a reason not to add it… Even going so far as to make up a story about a backplate with zero manufacturer’s mention… < forgetting that the manufacture is a primary source… Gaijin knows best… It needs backplate to work… Silly us for thinking