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.
9 Likes
120S suffer due to shit ass mobility tho
AMBT has no armor
2K is super agile but also fragile
other 2 are decent
10.3 gets uptier more than 10.0 uptier
1 Like
As a general rule of thumb. Yep
I’m literally a British main and I’m from the UK myself, it has nothing to do about hating British vehicles lmao, find another coping method.
I’m 34-7 in this thing and it’s not even fully upgraded 😂 definitely needs moved up
Hate us having good things, complain when we suggest another nations kit.
There is no winning
2 Likes
Perhaps I should’ve been more clear.
You have a fair point on the A1 being able to pen T-64b, the example I had provided. However!: Around this BR/ 9.7s uptiers, and every higher BR bracket, penetrating UFPs and/ or turret fronts is of least concern: past early T-72 models Soviet UFPs can’t be penetrated by kenetic anyway: (With the exception of the LOSAT) Besides the earliest darts, you should never have it your goal to pen an MBT UFP: Dont aim there. Very very bad idea. I used to call L23 bad for being like that, and L26 bad for the same reason: can’t pen UFPs. But top tier is a very different battlefield from the point middle and click of the lower BRs. If you’re having trouble with (non auto cannon) dart pen IMHO that’s entirely on you, you’re improperly using darts. Darts are always aim weak spot
-Driver Port
-LFP
-Breech
-Idler shot
Main gun darts are basically never bad, everybody can pen everybody.
This is hella wordy sorry but I think it gets my point across
L23 is a perfectly capable dart just like others. It’s A1 variant which is massively outclassed at 12.0 works totally fine for me, I’ve killed like 5 T-90m with it. (Haven’t played that much top top tier)
TLDR; ammo isn’t bad it’s how you use it/ the player using it. (Exactly the same philosophy of solid shot)
I admit I could’ve been clearer about Challenger terminology. But the UFP of both tech tree and the premium Challenger 1s are exactly identical to the Challenger 2 hulls.
By less coverage I meant the size/ shape of the plate itself: besides the driver port cut out, chally UFPs are like a T almost. By less coverage on the FV4030/3 I meant the shape is shorter: the stem/ I part of the T is shorter on the bottom end. (Hence bigger LFP as I said)
Sorry again this is really wordy but I think it gets the points across and clears things up.
BR 10.3 seems fair
Is the same BR as the Challenger Mk.2, which is better in every way.
L23A1 cannot penetrate the UFP of a T-64B, not even at point blank range.
You’re simply using the Armour Analysis tool incorrectly.
The constructional angle of the glacis is 68° yet in your example the angle of impact is only 65°, that’s because you’re zoomed in too far and have the camera placed much too high up.
Here’s an explaination:
At what instance is the world perfectly flat, even in-game majority of the time you’re shooting down towards a UFP and especially when you’re playing a much taller vehicle such as the FV4030/3. You’re not taking into account the actual height of other vehicles, but you prefer to measure this at a direct straight angle.
I’ve also tested this in customs with my friends when we do friendly 1vs1s, in-game experience is the best example. L23A1 was capable of handling the T-64B and in some instances, the T-80B (for the T-80B, it was mainly when shooting from hills, doesn’t really count tbf).
You’re going off-topic anyways, keep it related to the Challenger 1, I don’t know how angle and this diagram disproves the effectiveness of L23A1 compared to L23 lmao.
1 Like