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:
This isnโt a good reason not to add something like this to the tank, especially when there are already so many other vehicles in the game with similar features. Thereโs also the addition of the anime tanks, which are fictional, yet some of them have the option to remove the cage armour and mine protection, such as the Leopard 2A4M. This would simply be a quality of life improvement for the Challenger Mk.3s, OES, and TES.
This would be a great addition to the Challenger tanks, and I donโt think it would be controversial in any way. Should the Sherman IC and the many other tanks with similar modifications have those options removed simply because there isnโt definitive proof they used them?
This would be incredibly easy to implement, many players would be happy to see it added, and it would be completely inoffensive. All it does is provide the option to add the additional armour.
The Challenger Mk.3 should absolutely be able to equip this modification. Hopefully this isnโt another case of, โWe just donโt think itโs worth the effort.โ
Come on, this is a simple addition that would be greatly appreciated. It would not only improve the vehicle, but also pay tribute to the Challenger tanks that served during Operation Desert Storm. Itโs a small change with a meaningful historical connection, and now is the perfect time to add it.
1 Like
We donโt have to agree on the Phantoms and thatโs completely fine. However, I donโt think the reasoning against this suggestion is reasonable.
The premium Ariete Certezza in the Italian tech tree already has the option to equip its War Kit, so thereโs already a precedent for this kind of modification. The Challenger Mk.3 and Challenger DS should be able to do the same, along with the Challenger 2 OES and TES by allowing players to equip or remove their additional armour packages.
This isnโt some controversial feature that canโt be implemented. We both know it would be a relatively straightforward addition, and it wouldnโt break any of War Thunderโs existing design principles. The Challenger DS could be fitted with this additional armour in real life, and other Challenger Mk.3s deployed during Operation desert storm were also equipped with it.
Please consider adding this feature. It would mean a great deal to me and many other players who genuinely love these tanks. It would also pay tribute to the different Challenger configurations that served during the conflict instead of representing only a single version that doesnโt have all the bells and whistles.
There are practical benefits as well. Giving players the choice to fit or remove the additional armour would make these vehicles more versatile and interesting to play. For the Challenger DS specifically, equipping the armour modification could remove the sandbags and field applied markings, transforming it into a standard Challenger Mk.3 as it appeared during the Gulf War. That would give players two historically accurate configurations in a single vehicle.
I know this is something that can be done, and I genuinely believe it would be a worthwhile quality of life addition. It could even encourage more people myself included to finally purchase the Challenger DS. Iโm not trying to create extra work or push an unreasonable request; I simply want these tanks to represent more of their real world configurations while giving players greater freedom to customise them.
Please donโt waste this opportunity ๐
Just some additional information: this photo of the tank was taken before the add on armour kits were installed.
Every Challenger 1 deployed during Operation Granby/Desert Storm was fitted with the additional armour package. The upgrades were introduced specifically for the conflict, as the British Army expected to face Iraqi T-72s and other anti-tank threats. If the tanks historically carried these modifications in combat, they should be available in-game as a modification. The battle rating changes make this the perfect opportunity to add this.
With everything Iโve covered, I donโt see any compelling reason not to add this. It would improve historical accuracy, correct an existing historical inaccuracy, and give the Challenger a meaningful improvement without creating any balance issues.
No cap, Iโd buy this the moment it gets added. Full price, and no waiting for a sale. Itโs a win-win for everyone.
1:02:00
13:50
With everything Iโve found, I donโt see a good reason why this canโt be added. The evidence, including information from the Tank Museum, supports these modifications. Dismissing them would also mean dismissing the Tank Museum as a credible source.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
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.