Let’s just say that I was asked for sources about whether or not it was stabilised prior to the dev server opening lol…
9 Likes
looooool
So you really did all the work for the Vextra
1 Like
Just found something interesting. According to British documents, the Challenger 2 should have 500 KE across the turret and glacis:
Spoiler
Why is this relevant? According to the Greek trials, the S1 armour package achieved comparable protection to the Challenger 2:
“[The Challenger 2E’s] much-hyped armour was another negative surprise, being heavy and providing less protection than the Leopard 2A5S and M1A2, but only marginally better than the Leclerc which was at least 10 tonnes lighter”
Spoiler
So that’s another source to add for the S1. The S2 and SXXI achieve better protection. But the S1 in-game would be nerfed to ~500 KE across the hull and turret.
15 Likes
Yeah, might have to see when Rafael get added, although I think this year to be a bit bold cause I don’t think we are ready for AESA just yet. We will need all the AESA/PESA in at once, but I don’t think GAIJING could quite carry that much weight.
Ground force wise I don’t see any top tier stuff that will necessarily change much, I think maybe a thread on General French Ground Force addition could get made. Like this Potential Chinese Ground Force Additions - Machinery of War Discussion / Ground Vehicle - War Thunder — official forum
Buddy that document is for challenger 1 and prospective upgrades that never happened. I wouldn’t delve into challenger 2 protection for buffs if I were you…
1 Like
It’s overperforming in game afaik yea
No? Do you have any sources? This also points to it being closer to ~500 KE…
4 Likes
Frontal arc yes, there is also some argument for the street), the hull is also significantly lower than 500, none of which is helping your case for leclerc… which isn’t anywhere near what modern leopards offer…
1 Like
In-game? Because in-game it’s higher than 500mm:
Gaijin should probably lower the turret cheeks to 500mm @ 40° frontal arc, then change the BR’s as follows:
- Challenger 2 OES > 10.7
- Challenger 2 TES > 10.7
- Challenger 2 > 11.0
- Challenger 2 (2F) > 11.0
- Challenged 3 TD > 11.3
- Black Night > 11.3
- Challenger 2E > 11.3
It’s not that simple, the table shows that a turret armour of 600 mm KE was planned for the mid-90s (CR2 entered service in 1998, so after the mid 90s). And by November 1990 Vickers had already demonstrated that 600 mm KE protection was possible in trials:
In-game it’s 684mm though.
I honestly don’t know where Gaijin got the Challenger 2 armour figures from. For the Leclerc, Strv 122, M1A2 and M1A1 they’ve been pretty open about what sources they use, but not so much for the CR2.
1 Like
Yes, the turret frontal armour is too high in game, as is the hull armour. Which has always been expected given the crazy efficiency of the armour in game.
Who knows, but with the mantlet armour being so laughably weak the cheek armour hardly matters. If they buffed the mantlet to it’s historical ~500 mm (most likely value) then I wouldn’t mind the frontal arc protection going down to 600 mm.
3 Likes
Nerf tanks without adding new max BR (14.0) is a mistake, we don’t play modern MBT to be OS at each random shot.
High pen and high armored tank versions should only fight similar specs tanks.
Leo 2a4, AMX 40, M1 and chally 1 should not fight against over armored tanks like challenger 2, Leclerc S1 or Leo 2a5, and these one should not fight against 2a7, Leclerc SXXI, challenger 3, Sep V2 … because only OS everywhere.
1 Like
Maybe if the OES sold better, it would get a 500mm mantlet. Like the 2A4M that totally for real definitely has a realistic mantlet with up to 500mm KE :DDD
3 Likes
Some documents claim the Challenger 2 design features worse mantlet protection compared to the MLI due to, and I qoute: ‘‘A greater concentration of equipments fitted in or on the mantlet/rotor making the probability of an F kill greater given a strike. The design of the mantlet is also considered inefficient in armour protection terms.’’
The MLI is stated to have had 550mm RHAe for the mantlet, and if the Challenger 2’s design is significantly inferior from a protection point of view, I severely doubt the 500mm value.
Inferior not from protection, but due to the likely hood of damage to either the rotor bearings or electronic equipment… as it says…
It literally says it’s inefficient in terms of armour protection provided, and heavily implies this is a result from the equipment being mounted in the mantlet.
Inefficient, because it has no composite, and is thus heavy, it also leaves certain systems vulnerable.
Yes the TOGS gunsight was mounted on the mantlet in the CR2, but not on the MLI. As a result a shot to the mantlet is more likely to lead to an F kill (loss of ability to aim / fire the gun) than it was on MLI. You don’t need to penetrate the armour to achieve an F kill.
“Inefficient” is not the same thing as “weak”, if the armour was weak they would have called it that. Inefficient just means that the amount of armour you need to achieve the desired protection is more than would be necessary with other designs.
Yes I have that document. It dates from early in CR2 development and also states:
- VDS are planning to investigate improvements to the mantlet armour design during development
- The MLI mantlet design is “similar” to the CR2 mantlet but without the TOGS
- The armour on the CR2 mantlet is “somewhat” more limited than on the MLI mantlet (somewhat typically does not mean less than half - as it currently is in game)
So that document does not rule out a 500 mm mantlet on CR2.
There are other documents available on the CR2 mantlet besides that one though, which also happens to support the idea of a 500 mm mantlet.
Such as one which states Vickers Defence Systems (VDS) had carried out live fire trials against the CR2 turret which demonstrated, with a “high degree of confidence”, that the Challenger 2’s turret armour would meet the UK’s protection requirements; and that “the mantlet armour would survive multiple attacks while still leaving the gun free to elevate and depress”.
Funnily enough the UKs protection requirements specified a minimum protection value of 500 mm in the frontal arc. So it’s a pretty safe bet they were shooting that turret with rounds that had at least ~500 mm penetration. And yet the mantlet is explicitly stated to have survived just fine.
There’s also the fact that:
- Leopard 2 was originally outright rejected from the UK tank competition because it had a weak spot in the frontal turret armour. Only after that was fixed was it allowed to compete
- The full copy of that table Bossman posted includes the Leclerc, which has a note next to its entry stating there is a large frontal weak spot in the turret presumably (the mantlet). There is no such note for CR2.
Both of those points support the theory that the CR2 mantlet is not a weak spot in real life.
4 Likes