Except if it was 10.3 then it would be the same BR as the Challenger Mk2 which has both TVD and L23A1. If it went up in BR, it would need buffs.
I like how you are not okay with it getting downtiers to 8.7 but are somehow okay with it being pushed to 10.0 to where it can face tanks such as the chinese premium Al Khalid
The Chinese Al-Khalid-I needs to be moved up within itself, it has no right being 11.0 lmao. Don’t use broken vehicles as an example, and when in a full uptier expect the vehicle to obviously perform badly lol.
You’re right, the Al-Khalid could probably go up to 11.3 and be just fine alongside the Fuji, Raam Sagol, etc.
However, let me stop you right there and use the uno reverse card on your logic.
When in a full down tier expect the vehicle to obviously outperform the underdogs? If its a 9.7 and gets downtiered to 8.7 should it not outperform the 8.7 vehicles in some way? Given its a “Challenger prototype” its playstyle is obviously hull down, sniping vehicles from afar. So you would play it as you play a Chieftain, or a Challenger. If you decide to play it on open terrain then you can easily be pen and killed. How is it problematic?
As I’ve said above, it performs well in downtiers, probably won’t perform as well in a full uptier to 10.7, and definitely doesn’t need to be raised to 10.0, much less 10.3.
2 Likes
You do realise that the FV4030/3 has better protection than the Challenger Mk.2 which sits at 10.3? The only real impactful difference is the usage of L23A1 on the Mk.2 and thermals, other than that they’re the exact same.
Does the Mk.2 need to move down since it “can’t” perform well against 11.3 vehicles? No, stop coping, this thing is entirely broken at 9.7 and needs to be moved up to 10.0 and receive L23A1 as compensation.
It probably is but the dude complaining about CR2 armour when a Panzer IV can penetrate the front plate…Yeah that’s not going to work
People are gonna be complaining hard about chobham armour for a while because of the shirt 2 event. Even tho I’ve only hade the composite armour save me a handful of times so far, there’s loads of darts at that BR which go clean through it btw
Does it?
I was under the impression they were essentially identical. The same armour protection, mobility, etc (of course not including any protection the dozer blade provides on the Mk2. I think it provides additional protection anyway)
Its a Challenger Mk2 without TVD and with a weaker shell, which is why it sits lower. I also dont overly consider the Mk2 all that strong of a 10.3. 10.3 worthy certainly, but there are certainly stronger 10.3s.
9.7 doesnt entirely seem unreasonable for it considering the compression.
Given L23A1 it could be moved to 10.0 and would probably be overall healthier for it as there is an actual line-up at 10.0. But I think that should be the reason for it moving and not because its OP vs 8.7s.
2 Likes
What?? Welcome to literally EVERY tank in the game, it’s round is PLENTY sufficient! M1 and Leo 2A4 only have 370/408 pen and face 11.7… the tank still performs extremely well in 10.3 battles. Saying it needs to stay at 9.7 is actually insane
2 Likes
Don’t know about this one, the current MBTs at 9.7 is incredibly strong, T-64BV and Sabra has firepower advantage over it except for reload, but I can see the turret armor and mobility of the Shir is too much when played properly. But I hadn’t played it yet, and I noticed that the frequency of downtier in this br also much higher than 9.3.
Not every tank should be JUDGED on the same aspects, thats what most players lack awareness in top tier, some are extremely mobile, others pack a good punch, some can do it all without being particular best in any.
The M1 Abrams and the Leo 2A4 have insane mobility in both forward and reversal which makes them a very solid MBT for their BR. Its not about their gun penetration but how you use the mobility to your advantage to secure forwarded positions and tear down enemy teams, secure a good position and your gun will do the rest.
Challengers do not have good mobility compared to other MBT’s at 10.3 or 10.7, therefore they are not tanks to secure forwarded positions but instead play the support role and snipe enemies from afar. If a Challenger player somehow decides to go forward and play out of cover which is entirely possible they’re not using their tank strengths for their advantage rather instead their insticts and skills as a player.
The FV4030/3 is no exception to this, while it sits at 9.7 with a SOLID ROUND for its BR it is in no way in need of a NERF to a higher battle rating. As it is it can get to see the 10.7’s anyway if unlucky to a full up tier. PLUS as I’ve said before the UK doesn’t really have a SOLID lineup to go with it anyway, all backups are 9.3 vehicles besides the one premium Roolkat at 9.7.
4 Likes
players when britain has something good for once, its not better than something like a t64bv with its amazing protection and better shell.
9 Likes
to be fair, the rooikat and the olifant are quite good even at 9.7, the chieftain mk10 is definetly a bit slow but the firepower is the same as the shir 2(minus the great reload rate)
1 Like
Gaijin have appeared to screwed up the turret sides, they have too much KE protection (~175 vs ~130). Shir 2 should have better all around Ce protection, CR1 should have better 60 degree Ke protection.
(Iranian army wanted all around protection against RRifles like the Carl Gustaf etc, British army wanted better protection against off axis Ke threats)
2 Likes
Are you kidding my dude? A tank that is basically immune to heat rounds and ATGMs, has a vast array of weapon types, including APFSDS and ATGMs and has dominated it’s battle rating since release, along with it’s lower b.r, premium cousin, which is still too low a b.r for its class.
And you have the audacity to say a pumped up chieftain is too op? Literally the same ammo as the chieftain mk10, just the armour layout and slightly more powerful engine.
Get out of here. Just because somebody finally had something that can kill those T55s effectively now.
If the 4030 goes up, those T55AM+T55AMDs also need to go up.
6 Likes
Whilst i agree with the sentiment that modernized t55s are undertiered youre definetly stretching it here.
1 Like
Yeah he’s just wrong here. Someone else mentioned the side turret armor but across the frontal arc, ignoring the 20mm of structural steel from the dozer blade, the 4030 and Mk.2 are identical to each other.
For the sake of no ambiguity I’ll just put a list of what’s different/missing between the two:
- No thermals
- No dozer blade
- L23 top round (reduced 30° and 60° pen compared to L23A1, genuinely huge)
- Slightly better side turret protection
- Two tons lighter (increased PWR)
- Ugliest camouflage in the game
Other than that, any differences or perceived differences is entirely subjective or BR induced, such as the FV4030 having better armor, when in reality it’s just that it now needs an uptier to have its turret cleaved through by everything, as opposed to the Challenger Mk.2 which deals with that issue at its own BR.
I don’t know why everyone who clowns on the Challenger 1 as one of the worst 10.x vehicles is suddenly crawling out of the woodwork to say the worst possible version of it is too strong when it is, for all intents and purposes, a perfect analog to the T-64B in performance.
4 Likes
Yeah, that’s what I thought and I agree.
Not to be the guy that says ‘um actually’ but I think this needs to be said.
It’s ‘nasty’ at 9.7 because it’s what the Challenger should be, but it’s armor, including the turret, is total paper. So yes, it’s nasty but relative to the Challenger/ other 9.7s when in reality it’s what/ how the Challenger should play.
Sure it/ you may have a great KD in it, but it’s partially player skill based. Plus, it’s a new vehicle, and while similar to Challenger, is not one, so people are learning how to fight it. (Also it’s a new vehicle.)
You say “Almost an exact copy of the Challenger Mk.2 besides composite makeup of the turret” but also the hulls composite is thinner as well, and it’s coverage is shorter then the Challengers, that is, bigger lower plate.
Yes, no thermals or L23A1, but it doesn’t matter that much considering I do just fine with stock L23A1 (Instead of L27A1) in my Challenger 2 against 12.0s → shows it doesn’t make that much of a difference.
Gen 1 thermals don’t make that much of a difference anyway; they’re not that useful. (At least I can testify this, I’m sure others can) I’m not saying having gen 1 thermals or not shouldn’t change BR, I am saying that it wouldn’t be that different.
And of course you’re fighting ‘significantly weaker opponents’ in a full downtier. Of course an 8.7 that is the T-55AMD-1 is going to struggle. Put it against T-64B or Type 16 or even STRF 90/40B.
Adding more munitions wouldn’t balance it; it’d make it more powerful. (Perhaps another petty reason to move it up!) While yes you provided photographic evidence of a HEAT round, as others have pointed out you provided no further details. Also, Britain didn’t/ doesn’t have the domestic capability to produce HEAT rounds. (Which is why they didn’t) /!\ I don’t have source so it’s just my word for it but I have read that and I’m a mega tank nerd especially for British tanks.
Even if it moves to 10.0 it wouldn’t need L23A1, as I pointed out earlier it doesn’t make much a difference at all. (Expanding on my earlier Challenger 2 example, I’m getting to rank IV modifications and have/ had a 4.0 KD with just it’s stock L23A1.)
That’s all the debunking I have for this one, I feel like I covered everything. Props to all you fellow ‘I disagree with this solution’ voters.
Even if it moves to 10.0 it wouldn’t need L23A1, as I pointed out earlier it doesn’t make much a difference at all
The angled performance of L23A1 is significantly superior to base L23, this can be shown on protection analysis.
And yes, the L23A1 does penetrate the UFP of the T-64B even though it shows that penetration may not be possible
You say “Almost an exact copy of the Challenger Mk.2 besides composite makeup of the turret” but also the hulls composite is thinner as well, and it’s coverage is shorter then the Challengers, that is, bigger lower plate
Firstly there needs to be a clear distinction between “Challengers” and “Challenger 1s” as the Chally 1 and Chally 2 perform vastly differently overall. The hull composite coverage of the FV4030/3 and Challenger 1 are also exactly the same, this also includes protection value.
Challenger 1 UFP
FV4030/3 UFP
The only difference is the side of the turret, which funnily enough is stronger on the FV4030/3.
1 Like
so people really hate when britain has something that’s good?, ugh whatever no point in saying anything, i’m anyways pretty tired.
10 Likes