Whilst the 3 rounds left of the driver don’t exist, the 4 round rack (3 ingame) behind the driver does in fact exist and was posted in the old Challenger 2 thread on the old forums before it got nuked.
The correction would be to remove the 3 round rack left of the driver, increase the behind driver rack from 3->4 rounds and and add 2 rounds, one on each corner between rear charge bins and turret floor as seen here marked 2. One on the loaders side, one on the commanders side when the turret is facing forward
Also Challenger 2 has dry charge bins, not wet like T-55. The armor thickness should be increased to 25mm steel.
Here’s one more additional screenshot of the loader, standing essentially ontop of the ammo rack. Keep in mind - The ammo needs to be slid the entire length of it’s body horizontally to clear the tube before being able to rotate and be manuevoured to the loader.
The rounds behind the driver are not in tubes, they are flat on the floor, secured by quick release clips. They don’t need to be slid back, just the clips released and the ammo can be raised
Pic related is from Chieftain but it is basically the same
I’d be happy to believe you if you can provide sources for the claims.
Using Chieftain or Challenger 1 photos is making the same mistake that Gaijin did when modelling CR2. I’ve been completely unable to find any photos or documents suggesting the driver or chair ammo exists.
Challenger 2 shares the name of Challenger but should be regarded as a completely separate tank. While design philosophies may have been similar, the tanks are not the same and thus “things are just in the same place” doesn’t work.
The chair ammo especially can’t because it’s modelled to be underneath the freefloated rotating basket of the turret.
“Also challenger 2 has dry charge bins”, again, if you could provide sources to this claim that’d be great.
Would also like to point out, the 2x2 storage bins in the middle of the last pic are slide release, same as the propellant bins either side of them in the horizontal containers.
The projectiles may be held in with clips, but propellant charges are stored in sliding housings in metal containment bins in all of your photos.
You’ll have to provide evidence or a source of some kind to your claims, or some kind of reasoning that support your conclusion.
Just wanted to say i read the bug reports regularly especially for minor nations like Britain, France, Japan etc and from what I’ve seen you’ve been extremely fair and genuine when it comes to information needed to chage a vehicle and improve the game, in more than one situation someone has had to post the same thing twice after having first person gloss over the info an close the post…to then have you actually read, request info and pass on to the devs making the whole bug report situation less stressful and frustrating. It’s appreciated
@Gunjob really deserves some MVP recognition in this community for sure. I understand their job isn’t as glamorous or hype enducing like a new vehicle being announced but Gunjob’s out here making sure every inaccuracy and discrepency in WT gets its fair shot in the limelight and that players concerns and issues are fairly treated.
Mad respect and has been a huge help in forwarding these Challenger 2 posts. They take a ton of effort for me to put together, research and write and it’s awesome to have a member of staff who seems just as passionate to correct these issues as I am.
Id argue fixing existing vehicles is more important than adding new one’s XD at least in that sense you dont have a game filled with vehicle not reaching their full potential going unplayed. I think 60 META vehicles is more fun than 2 XP the only way to make sure that happens is to make sure bug reporting is stress free, fair and easy as possible for all those involved.
2x2 (really 3x2 with the angled set to the left) is sliding but is also on the rotating turret floor.
Challenger 2 has the same setup but with a 7 rounds stowage with the whole rack angled (like the left rack) I’m talking about the 4 rounds you can see ahead of that (1 APDS 3 HESH) that are stowed on the hull floor. Those are just clipped down and raised up when needed to replenish the turret ammunition stowage
Basically the fixed ammo stowage should look like this
Challenger 2F, TES and Black Knight should have the top APFSDS round removed since the VUDT display terminal, which is part of the Bowman upgrade, takes its place, lowering the round count to 49
Okay, but we need sources, photos, evidence.
I’ve provided my sources, evidence, reasoning and deductions.
For me to edit this, would need you to show me some UNCLASSIFIED documents, photos, video, or proof that is compelling enough to prove your case.
As of right now, I can’t see any way of either ammo rack existing and so its not reflected in my work here. I’ll gladly change it if you give a compelling, cited case.
The ready rack issue (should be 24/28 pcs instead of 3/4 pcs) was accepted in October 2023 but has yet to be implemented. I’m not sure what Gaijin their “acceptable timeframe” for addressing “accepted” bugs is, but this seems more like a prioritization decision to avoid fixing it rather than an oversight. Either way, let them fix it or be honest about not fixing it for transparant reasons.
They have literally already -accepted- this as an issue … almost a year-and-a-half ago. They just aren’t putting in any effort towards fixing/releasing this “accepted issue”. And since they’ve already correctly modelled the ammo in the back of the turret … it would literally be a fix in the line of:
Mark back of turret ammo storage as stage 1 (update other ordering of ammo racks)
…
(players) Profit?
Considering this concerns one of the top tier tanks in their game that costs players a couple of 100 hours to attain, it would be fair to ask the correct numbers.
Ah apologies I got too focussed on the CR2 stuff. I am reluctant to add this to the issue report as sometimes they get closed with an “too many issues raised for one report”-reason. Would I be naïve in assuming they would themselves adjust this for CR1 when “addressing” this issue?
The issue of ammunition is somewhat complex, as there are tanks in which the ammunition tanks are very close to the loader, so that when using up first-rate ammunition, the reloading time would not be much longer. Another issue is the tanks that are in the hull and depending on where the turret is pointing, the loader would have them extremely close, and that would not increase the reloading time.
In the case of the Challenger 2, having 4 bullets as first ammo is little less than ridiculous, since there are more projectiles and propellants right next to the magazine, and that would not mean an increase in reload time.
Im not mentioning it for that. But to further your point about fixing a fundemental, game breaking issue for one nation. Its one thing if its a bug that affects just a top tier tank, buts its another when it affects 2 full BRs.
Given how weak the CR2s are in general, Fixing the CR1s is almost the higher priority for Britain, but 2 birds one stone and all that. So whenever one gets fixed, the other should too
This is how they deal with accepted reports, they anonymously hide behind “accepted suggestion” (admitting they know something is up), say it’s not a bug without disclosing why while having been presented evidence otherwise. Always the same with Gaijin, a company in it for the pesos not the players.
