I mean, that’s true of most chieftains to be honest.
2 Likes
I propose dropping the Mk.3 down to BR 8.3, giving the Mk.5 LRF, keeping the Mk.10 as it is bar a reload buff - and adding the Mk.11 at 9.3, maybe or maybe not with L23A1. Buff them all with a 1-2 second faster reload. Mk.5 IIRC was the first model to receive an LRF, and was the first production tank in the world to receive the technology.
Mk.10 is fine in-game, pretty sure its turret can stop the DM23 or M774 of the 10.3 Leopard 2A4 and M1 Abrams - Mk.10 sits at 9.0. Its the only tank at its BR that has the armour to stop that. Buffing its reload would be enough for it, surely. Though the Mk.10 lacks in mobility, she’s got great armour and L23 at 9.0 is pretty in-line with what other tanks get. The reload is the sucker.
No movement on this then.
Unfortunately not, still think they should go down to 8.3 or receive the /2 upgrades with the LRF and the Chieffy mk.10 should become the MK.11.
That said, It’s never gonna happen so I’ll go back to hoping for mid-high tier MBT’s like the Vickers series and the Osorio’s.
1 Like
Decided to try and spade the mk 5. This is honestly sad, the apds doesn’t do any damage anymore, slow as shit, no armour…. 8.7 is a joke at this point with the t55am still being the same br as it.
6 Likes
Anyone got any good books or websites to go for to find out the history of the chieftain and the development process. Only just realised how heavy the centurion was and how much lighter the chieftain is compared to what I thought. Would like to try and understand why we decided a 660hp engine was good enough for a 55 ton beast going from the centurions 52.5 tons with a 650hp engine…. You would think we would go for something with a little more power behind it?
The Haynes manual is pretty good.
Ah yes, Haynes. Great for cars, bikes and tanks. Have they done any on agitation as well?
Come again?
Sorry, aviation. Don’t know where autocorrect got that from.
That they do first results from searching gave me ones for the Lancaster and Avro Vulcan.
Oooooo. A Vulcan one you say. Going to be getting that asap.
1 Like
Iirc we couldn’t get the multifuel working at higher HPs, which was a NATO requirement for MBTs at the time, we where the only people to actually follow that requirement though…
1 Like
Ah yes the famed multifuel requirement
Shame no one else did it
What I want to know is why we trusted Leyland with the making of an engine, let alone a car. They were the ones who thought it would be a good idea to put a 384hp engine in the Cromwell a instead of the meteor.
2 Likes
Chieftain Mk 3 as is should be fine at 8.3, it doesn’t need anything else.
Chieftain Mk 5 should hopefully be getting that laser range finder soon. That bug report was accepted. I’d give it a little time to see if that makes a difference, if it doesn’t then that’s when I’d consider a Mk 5/4 module with APFSDS.
Chieftain Mk 10 is close to being fine, that’s when I absolutely agree with it being renamed to Mk 11. They don’t even need to change the vehicle model.
3 Likes
They would have to, the Mk 11 uses TOGS in place of the IR lamp
And maybe I’m being biased towards Chieftains but I’d want both
There’s evidence the TOGS equipment was simply put directly in the lamp box itself in some cases. I think it’s somewhere in this thread actually.
If you are referring to this: Let’s talk about the chieftain - #89 by DonnyTheDealer69
This is not a proper installment just a very early prototype used for testing.
The irony is T-55AM-1 fires a worse kinetic round than the Chieftain Mk5.
I love my Chieftains though I am sad I never got to use the Mk5 in battles due to how much stuff Britain gets that gains my eyes more.
Mk10 and Khalid get most of my attention these days due to 9.3 being so good.