(THEREโS A HIGH CHANCE WEโRE BOTH WRONG ABOUT THIS.)
Holy Dunning Kruger, thanks for reminding me.
Itโs incredibly frustrating that they chose a version without the additional armour. Hopefully, weโll see that modification added to both tanks in the future because itโs honestly mind blowing that it still hasnโt happened yet. The Challenger Mk.3 was added back in 2018, that was eight years ago. Come on, Gajin!
Kinda mind blow that people would vote no for something like this ๐ญ๐
@waomiku I know exactly what you did and you better take that back. Iโm not going to let someone tip the scales on something people have been asking for in the game for four years just for the sake of a stupid joke.
(Joke. I honestly donโt understand why anyone would be opposed to these quality-of-life improvements and small buffs.)
join a new challenger not change the current one
This isnโt some massive buff thatโs going to push it up to 11.7. Iโm simply suggesting that the additional armor be added as an optional modification for both tanks, so players can equip it whenever they want, just like many other vehicles already in the game. Itโs not rocket science.
Hello
They were rejected, not because of any historical reasons or lack of evidence, but because this particular tank was the version without that. This was intentional and there for not a bug.
Its based on a Desert Storm tank that was before the armour was fitted:
(๐๐๐๐๐๐) ๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ ๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฒ: ๐๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ & ๐๐๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐ค ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ
We donโt have to agree on the Phantoms, and thatโs completely fine. However, I donโt think the reasoning against this suggestion holds up.
WarThunder already has a precedent for this. The premium Ariete Certezza can equip or remove its War Kit, so thereโs no reason the Challenger Mk.3, Challenger DS, Challenger 2 OES, and Challenger 2 TES shouldnโt be able to do the same with their additional armour packages.
This wouldnโt be some controversial feature or a major gameplay change. Itโs a simple quality of life improvement that fits perfectly within War Thunderโs existing design. Players would have the choice to equip or remove the armour depending on how they want to configure the vehicle, just as they can with several other tanks already in the game.
From a historical standpoint, the case is even stronger. Every Challenger 1 deployed during Operation Granby (Desert Storm) was fitted with the additional armour package. These upgrades were introduced specifically for the conflict in anticipation of facing Iraqi T-72s and anti-tank threats. The photo being used as evidence against this suggestion was taken before the armour kits were installed, so it doesnโt reflect the vehicles as they entered combat.
For the Challenger DS, this change would also allow two historically accurate configurations in a single vehicle. Equipping the armour modification could remove the sandbags and field applied markings, effectively turning it into a standard Challenger Mk.3 we already see in game. This would minimize work making like way easier for you guys.
The evidence supporting these modifications is well documented, including information from the Tank Museum. If that evidence isnโt considered credible, then itโs difficult to see what standard of proof would be accepted.
There are already plenty of examples of comparable features in WarThunder. Some vehicles can equip or remove armour packages, and even vehicles such as the anime Leopard 2A4M, allow players to remove cage armour and mine protection. If those options are acceptable, thereโs no reason historically accurate Challenger armour packages shouldnโt be.
This change wouldnโt create any balance issues, and it wouldnโt require a major amount of development time. It would improve historical accuracy, give players more freedom to customise their vehicles, and better represent the different Challenger configurations used during Operation Granby.
The recent battle rating changes also make this an ideal opportunity to revisit the Challenger family. Itโs a small addition that would make these vehicles more interesting to play while paying tribute to the tanks that actually served during the conflict.
Personally, Iโd buy the Challenger DS the moment this feature was added, even at full price. I know Iโm not the only player who feels that way.
I genuinely hope this doesnโt become another case of, โWe just donโt think itโs worth the effort.โ This is a straightforward, historically supported feature that would be appreciated by a lot of players and would only improve these vehicles.
1:02:00
13:50
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/m22cZZxaNPXJ
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uH0qF2UTK5P9
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Kf92FzZLnysd
๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ซ ๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐, ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ฒ๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ฏ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ค๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ซ๐๐ญ-๐ฆ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ง๐๐ฌ.
This photo was taken before the additional armour package was fitted.
When has the 2A4M (both Senrai and default) have the ability to remove the armour?
Cage armour and mine protection can already be removed from the Leopard 2A4M, saving a small amount of weight. There are plenty of other examples of this in-game as well and even the first Challenger 2 you unlock has this option.
Because of that, I donโt think the reasoning for rejecting this change holds up, especially considering the amount of historical evidence thatโs been presented. One of the key sources is the Tank Museum itself, which is about as credible as it gets. The photograph of the tank without the additional armour was also most likely taken before the Operation Granby armour package was fitted. Overall, itโs a pretty frustrating situation.
I would like this or the tank could be renamed to Challenger pre-DS as the CIK kit was mounted to every active front line vehicle in saudi arabia before Desert Storm commenced.
So i guess the current DS is not actually historically representative of a vehicle that fought on the ground at the commencement of Desert Storm or during the war.
The latter option is just silly because it completely defeats the point of what the tank is supposed to represent. Itโs like adding a pre-Falklands War Harrier without AIM-9Ls, a pre-RP-3 Cromwell before the rockets were fitted, or a T-72AV TURMS without its ERA simply because thereโs a photograph of one without it. You get the point, because itโs an unnecessary distinction.
The Challenger Mk.3 without the additional armour is like fish and chips without the chips. Itโs missing one of the defining features of the vehicle as it served during Operation Granby.
but the point still stands itโs not representative of a challenger 1 that operated in desert storm so itโs not named correctly - correct?
Itโs been fully reported and the report accepted already
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vgonJS3tbCOg
That was 9 months ago. Iโm trying to tell you that they forgot ๐ญ๐ I wouldnโt be doing any of this if it said โFixedโ now thatโs the jackpot
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
enlighten me
provide a solid explanation for why this cannot be implemented. Explain why sources such as The Tank Museum are incorrect about Challenger 1s receiving this armour during the war, and explain why the accounts of the tank crews who served with these vehicles should be dismissed.
*EDIT: Donโt actually flag/remove his reply, heโs just being goofy and Iโm frustrated.
I just wouldnโt place the word of Bovingtonโs curators on too high of a pedestal.
Theyโve perpetuated misinformation plenty of times before, such as the caliber of the weapons of the Churchill AVRE and TOG II*, or the Schneider CA1 not havng suspension.
Despite access to information, they are slow to correct themselves.
Other sources are fine, but just donโt rely on what the Tank Museum alone says.
While anyone can make a mistake, itโs far less common with The Tank Museum, and when errors are identified, they acknowledge and correct them. In this case, there is no indication that theyโve made a mistake regarding the Challenger Mk.3. Much of the information they present comes from extensive research, including interviews with veterans who served during the Gulf War.
As a museum, they also have access to archives, documents, and primary sources that are not readily available to the general public. Thatโs precisely why so many people regard them as a credible source on British armoured vehicles.
Dismissing everything theyโve said because of a couple of unrelated mistakes is not a reasonable argument. It ignores the quality of the evidence theyโve presented and does nothing to address the facts surrounding the Challenger Mk.3.
