China really is a nice one to play between 8.0 and at the very least 11.0, im still building an effective 12.0 lineup so im reserving my answer on it.
It is fun as hell tbh
I want to get my hands on china top tier as well one of these days but I really want to wait until they get at least one decent/good top tier light tank or IFV
Its armour is actually terrible, probably one of the worst at top tier. In addition to the massive breech hole, LFP vulnerabilities, and the large turret ring weakspot, now the lower UFP is penetrable too. It has more penetrable area than armour. Don’t forget the fact multiple ERA blocks are clumped into one, including the two giant blocks on the turret. And the mobility - top speed forwards is fine, but everything else isn’t. The maneuverability is terrible, it has a very annoying delay between movement and responds poorly, not just at neutral steering, but also at turning when at low speed.
Hell of a stock grind, too. It took me probably 3x the effort that I used to spade ZTZ99A. Pretty much an 11.3 worthy tank at 12.0.
2 Likes
Thank you for the detailed evaluation of the tank, I really appreciate the time taken to write it out.
I really thought it was better than that, but obviously broken models and broken armour values have made it severely worse than it seems on paper.
Not sure i should even grind it out now. Got 120k rp left on it.
I do if I have it. If you’re hulldown and I can’t hit you. Any roof tank equipment if I’m able. I will shoot it. Sometimes it leads to kill sometimes it doesn’t.
You have no idea what you’re talking about lol. If the U.S. wanted or saw a need for HE, it would have HE. It doesn’t see the need. It has looked over things and decided heat and subsequently the MPAT(or whatever it’s called) are what the U.S. says are necessary for its operational needs.
1 Like
wonder what he thinks HESH is for on the challangers…
Or why the abrams has a sort of HE round
Dudes just baiting man aren’t they I wouldnt get too deep into it. Same argument people use saying hte CR2 is a bad tank and has no export success, yet dont even know Oman and Jordan have them xD
People just think war thunder is indicative of real life.
For example the differences between a 2a7 and a SEPV3 are not all that much. They are contemporaries even though in game they are quite advantageous over Abrams.
In reality though, they’re a stones throw from each other and whoever shoots first is winning.
It’s nationalism played out from extrapolating game content as though it mirrors reality.
2 Likes
TBH most MBTs that applies to now adays. Like the comparisson between the M1A2 and challanger 2 from back in the early 2000s as if one was miles ahead of hte other.
When in reality they are both highy protected, well armed, and decently (Abrams was far more) mobile.
This game is a joke ot even say its semi realistic half the time anymore, especially at top tier or high tier.
Like the Sep V3 , 2a8, CR3, New merkava, leclerc XLR etc are all in reality quite fairly similar, sure some distinctions between them, mobility for example, the Abrams and leclercs are more mobile.
But overall they as you say are so closely equipped and such that it would literally depend on who fired first.
Hence why the CR3 is focusing on upgrading the FCS so much.
1 Like
I agree, full stop.
1 Like
another good example, russian MBTs can fire ATGMS , and i think no one else designed that bar china.
Doesnt make it effective.
To be fair the Challenger 2 isn’t a great tank these days in real life either. It’s behind every NATO counterpart besides the Ariete.
It doesn’t help that people like to make up stories about it to make it seem way better than it is. Like the rifled gun accuracy myth or the “9 trillion gazillion RPGs survived!” myth
oh its out dated now sure by nato standards, however its performance in the east shows its still not as bad as folks say. Heavy right enough.
The CR2 still is a very, very sturdy tank, even if its darts are out dated, slow, and heavy.
What myth ? the gun is incredibly accurate man, even in ukraine the soldiers are touting it to be incredibly accurate.
The issue with the rifled gun was never the accurace, it was always the fact that it limited the ability to share ammunition with nato and could not sustain as many rounds passing through the barrel as a smoothbore could.
It was still a rather high amount of RPGs 14 or so was it not? I can’t find a source to verify it taht isnt just some pleb on reddit or quora spouting total nonsense.
However it was no where near the 70, 80, or even 90 some folks spout, However it also depends where they hit doesnt it. weve seen T90Ms taken out with bradley auto cannon fire, as well as abrams have been damaged in testing in the 90s i believe it was with the same auto cannon.
It’s not that it’s not accurate, the myth is that people tout it as being more accurate than smooth bore designs and that’s why the rifled design was chosen.
I don’t remember off the top of my head but the number I hear a lot is 70 which I know isn’t true.
It used to be, and no everyone knows why the rifled barrel was chosen was due to the seething obsession with HESH the tankers apparently had.
The difference was APDS rounds fired from a rifled gun where more accurate, the switch to APFSDS changed all and rifling on barrels slowly became obsolete.
However again, as per the reports of people using the tanks in active combat right now they say the challanger 2 tank is more accurate at longer ranges than the comparative abrams or leopards.
Its biggest issue is how god damned heavy it is and how much slower it is.
However WT does not show how effective its suspension system really is which accounts for a lot of its accuracy IRL as far as i can see,
Pff it changes from person to person, normally the number I would hear was 70 or 80, seen a few posts of folk saying 90!!
even 10 would be impressive all things considered but remember, if they were firing consistently at the frontal arc of the tank (unlike the dude who fired an RPG 29 through the floor of CR2)
Then it would be able to withstand a substantial number of hits.
RPG7 is no where near as potent as an APFSDS round.
KH38 is OP
Pantsir is OP
KA-52 is OP
KA-50 is OP
T-80 and T-90 Spall liner and engine noise OP
And that’s just the top tier. There are the tiers like 10.3 with their own set of grievances.
The only thing they don’t excel in is air to air in the fox 3 category.
On top of that they have minor nations bias. Dev’s gave up a long time ago in even justifying or fighting the idea of their bias. It’s blatant.
Lmao just now having this discussion with someone in another thread.
The rifle was for the hesh round and hesh round only. Spin on a dart is actually worse for it. All darts spin some, albeit quite slow, compared to if you tried to spin stabilize it.
I didn’t realize people go around talking about the rifling of the barrel being more accurate, but it’s funny you said this hours ago and I’m having this exact discussion with someone now about it in another thread lol
2 Likes
If I remember my physics correctly, spin on dart isn’t necessarily bad. It’s just the fact that the minimum spin speed required to have a good effect and spin-stabilise a projectile of such a small diameter is very, very high. Probably unachievable by modern weaponry. A small amount of spin, however, would be detrimental to accuracy. That is the case in real life.
Accordingly, if I recall correctly, Challenger 2 APFSDS is specially designed to prevent the dart itself from spinning? Like the thing the French did with their OCC 105 F1.
The rifling made it more accurate for APDS rounds back in the day, it also made the HESH more accurate.
The Challanger 2 is a more accurate tank than say an abrams, as is being proved in ukraine by those using them, that does not mean a smoothbore is less accurate than a rifled gun however.
and accuracy was of no bearing on the choice of cannon for the tank it was based off of the choice of hesh.
Direct you to the most modern compitition of the tanks. in which the CR2 won it.
Spin on a dart is bad, unless you have enough spin to stabilize it in which case you wouldn’t need fins. Which would take a high twist rate and charge behind it to accommodate for this loss in velocity to make it spin enough. Seemingly cheaper and more straight forward to minimize spin, and use APFSDS. As far as I understand it. The things I’m reading online say the same.
Thought I specifically remember reading something in the last couple years that upended this belief in one study where spun darts didn’t perform any different. I’m just going with the generally accepted thought and accepted science behind. However I’ve performed none of it and my knowledge is just repeating what I read online by those in that industry.
No offense, but that really doesn’t mean much. Those competitions aren’t just move and shooting, there’s other silly stuff in there. Almost all tanks in the competition remain unchanged in the last decade as far as barrel and ammunition is concerned and Leo’s have won it other years. So has an Abrams, and different nations do better and worse different years on the shooting portion.
I’m not really invested either way on this, but a competition doesn’t prove much. A bench test(essentially) would be what proves is the most accurate between gun and fcs. But no one is doing that because it doesn’t really matter. They’re all gonna hit their shots and are excellent.
The competitions have different winners in different years, but the guns remain unchanged. A lot of it comes down to crew, not gun, which is why I said it doesn’t mean much. Thought I know the Chally has the longest recorded shot in pretty sure.