๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ (๐๐) ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ
This post is about Gaijin adding the additional armour package to the Challenger DS.
Every bug report submitted about this issue has been rejected, despite players providing photographic evidence and reliable sources showing and talking about why the Challengers in Desert Storm used this additional armour package.
Personally, I chose not to buy this tank because of this missing feature. However, I would seriously consider purchasing it if Gaijin added the armour package into the game.
There is honestly no reason why this cannot be implemented. If the developers do not want to spend time adding the sand bags and whatnot, there is a very simple solution: add the additional armour as a modification. Once the modification is installed, the tank can use the same model as the one currently in the tech tree.
This would be a simple fix that requires minimal effort while making the vehicle more historically accurate. There is no real reason why this cannot be added, especially considering the evidence already provided by the community.
๐๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฆ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ. ๐๐๐ง๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ฒ๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ฌ.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CQ60GS6u4z5F
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/G4Ane6wSkUm4
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/l6yFshv7tjvx
- โ Yes, add it as a modification
- โ No, keep the vehicle unchanged
Disappointing
There is now substantial evidence showing that Challenger 1s deployed during Operation Granby, including the Challenger DS, received the additional armour package as part of their theatre modifications. These upgrades were specifically introduced to improve protection against anti-tank weapons and other battlefield threats before combat operations began.
To the people who voted against this, I suggest doing some basic research before dismissing the evidence. And to Gaijin, this is incredibly disappointing. You repeatedly claim that War Thunder strives for historical accuracy, yet decisions like this suggest that historical evidence is only accepted when itโs convenient.
Iโll keep repeating this point because it hasnโt been addressed. The photograph of the tank without the additional armour was most likely taken before the Operation Granby armour package was fitted. Overall, itโs a frustrating situation, especially considering how many historical sources state that these modifications were applied to Challenger 1s deployed during the conflict.
To put this into perspective, itโs like refusing to add the F-4J(UK)โs external gun simply because there isnโt a photograph of that specific aircraft carrying it, despite numerous other Phantoms using the same configuration in service. The absence of a photograph of one individual vehicle does not prove that the equipment was never fitted.
In this case, weโre only asking for a simple historical correction for both tanks. This isnโt a controversial balance change or a major gameplay overhaul. Itโs a straightforward historical fix supported by credible evidence. Thatโs why itโs difficult to understand why such a simple, low-risk correction has been rejected by a community manager. The very first Challenger 2 you unlock in the game already includes a comparable historical armour modification, so applying the same standard here should not and would not be controversial.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Kf92FzZLnysd
