Great work
A copy paste over too Community Bug Reporting System might be a good idea that way it can be actioned. They don’t actually look at the forums for fixing these things annoyingly
7 Likes
@Gunjob and @Smin1080p typically have been quite good with looking at the forum posts. They’re good guys! I wouldn’t be so quick to discredit them! Just take a look over at the Stormer HVM posts. ^^
As with my TES post, what I like to do is post my forum post first, to open the topic up to critism, debate, and conversation. Raise awareness and whatnot. Fact check me. All that good stuff.
And then additionally create an issue log for Gaijins internal system
This post here is more so for the public to read :)
Thanks for taking the time as well! Took me all day haha
2 Likes
Can’t even finish reading the post before getting tagged. Ahaha
8 Likes
I’m just that quick, man! haha <3
Looks sound to me, how do you account for the shells that would be removed? Is it that the total ammo pool is lower or is there another location for them?
1 Like
If the museum tank info card is to be believed, there should be ~50 shells maximum capacity.
If we look at the wet storage bins in the turret - We have from left to right: 9 charges in one bin, 16 charges in the middle bin behind the breach (double stack), 9 charges by the loader, 4 in the floated container left of the breach, and 12 left of the drivers left shoulder.
That gives you exactly 50 charges - This is the accurate position of all combustable charges if I had to guess. Projectiles are a bit harder, as no matter what we do, we never end up with 50 charges by removing the ammo bins at the front.
Discounting the erroneous ammo bins, we end up with 42 projectiles in the turret. Close to the advertised 50: it could have been an intentionally vague number given the secrecy of the vehicle - maybe precise ammo counts are not provided and instead appoximates? I doubt this though.
There’s two options I can think of to solve this problem outside of “50 is not the exact round count”:
1.
I would suggest that the additional projectile heads are stored likely in a similar configuration to Challenger 1: either side of the drivers shoulders. War thunder already models a 2 piece projectile rack there, but this too I believe is speculation as i’ve not found any documents or photographs of it’s placement there. This could mean, the gunner when facing forward has direct access to the projectile bins, while the loader can access the charge bins. This makes sense to me.
The left shoulder containing charge bins to equal the advertised 50 rounds of propellant, the right containing the required 8 additional projectiles in a horizontal layout, mirroring the charges on the loader’s side.
More projectiles are stored left of the loader, as seen in this photo at the bottom of the screen.
near the red 2, that looks like the tip of a HESH round. I would wager most, if not all ammunition is stored in the turret as close to the loader and gunner as possible.
Either side of the wet ammo storage bins at the back, there appears to be a HESH projectile loaded onto an upright rack there. Hard to say for sure, and it would very much depend on the developers best judgement here.
Me personally, i’d say a combination of the two. There’s likely additional ammunition storage right next to the loader where that HESH is, I don’t see why that wouldn’t exist either side, so that’s two additional projectiles at minimum. Possible room for more under the red 4 on the photo, laid horizontally but that’s pure guesswork.
Infront of the gunner, is likely a projectile bin to fit the remaining rounds to make a rounded compliment of 50 projectiles.
Difficult to say given how few photos have been taken of inside CR2 but this is about as far as public knowledge can take someone.
Ultimately, Gaijin could do the following implimentations and still come out with a very fair CR2 guess.
-
ALL of the missing projectiles are at the right side of the drivers shoulder, to be accessed by the gunner. This might be true, given the photos looking down at the drivers position show big white walls on either side. One is definitely an ammo bin, the other? Possibly projectiles.
-
Vertical racks store projectiles near the loaders feet, and more rounds are stacked horizontally near his shin. Complete guesswork BUT there is HESH there, supporting that ammo is stored near the loaders feet. At least 1 round.
This could be mirrored over near the commander and gunner, be a mix between this and suggestion 1, or have all the projectiles near the gunners feet, loaders shins and behind/beside the commander, mirrored from where that single HESH round is. -
The number of 50 projectiles is incorrect, and is an approximation. Total rounds is 42, number of charges in Wet Bins to be adjusted to the new figure.
7 Likes
Also @Gunjob, would you suggest I submit this via the issues site or is this something you guys would handle? Not sure if this counts as a bug or not as it’s an intentional placement by the developers, just erroneous?
1 Like
@Gunjob That’s it on the issues reporter now :)
The readability has been thoroughly axe-murdered but it contains the same info word for word. Thanks man!
2 Likes
Good lord… the text. Forwarded… I need a tip jar 0.o
3 Likes
Yeah, hats off to the poor soul that reads them lmao
It definitely looks prettier on the forum, that’s for sure.
Not sure what happened at the end, too LMAO
Either way, appreciate you as always, man. Thanks for the help!
2 Likes
Great work bro
I hope they fix it I love this tank very much and I hope it will be fixed
2 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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
4 Likes
Thank you! Always nice getting post like these.
4 Likes
BIG AGREE!
@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.
🧡
3 Likes
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.
1 Like