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.
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.
They will say โDSโ can stand for Desert Shield.
The deterrent deployment of multinational forces in Saudi Arabia, and operational build up in the 5-6 months before Desert Storm launched to liberate Kuwait.
But neither is really right for a British tank, since we called the whole thing Op. Granby
You guys are giving them the perfect excuse not to implement this. Some of the replies here only make it easier for them to dismiss a straightforward historical correction instead of putting in the effort to implement it.
I know some of you want to see this added to the game, but replies like these push the discussion backwards instead of forwards. If we want this change to happen, we should be presenting the strongest historical evidence possible, not arguments that undermine the case ourselves.
From what Iโve seen in previous discussions, including the F-14D thread, Gaijin is often quick to adopt arguments that justify leaving things as they are. Thatโs why itโs important not to hand them those arguments ourselves.