Update 2.33.0.39

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
21

Lemme sum it up a bit:

1- Leopard 2 PSO:
-Should have D-tech (600mm KE) hull, instead of C-tech (420mm KE).
-Upper front plate does not bounce shots whatsoever; not even at 84º angles, while every other Leopard’s UFP does bounce them off, just like any 81º> plate (Leos are 82º).

2- Leopard 2A7V:
-Glacis armor is, for some reason, 90mm weaker than the one found in the older Strv 122s.
-Turret armor is, for some reason, 130mm weaker than 2A5/6/PSO/122’s.
-Upper front plate does not bounce shots whatsoever; not even at 84º angles, while every other Leopard’s UFP does bounce them off, just like any 81º> plate (Leos are 82º).
-Missing acceleration (should NOT accelerate slower than 2A5; its powerplant was modified to make up for the additional weight.)

3- Challenger 2 (all), Challenger 3 TD:
-Side armor should be 50mm instead of 38mm.
-Internal shield and gun trunnion/rotor should be at least 400mm thick, instead of 200mm thick.
-Challenger 3 should have the Perkins CV12 engine sound, instead of the MTU engine sound.
-The Perkins engine sounds like a Leyland (Chieftain) engine when revving up for some reason.
-For some reason, the middle glacis section is significantly weaker than the glacis’ sides (520mm KE compared to 580mm KE).
-Back ammorack still not counted as first-order rack, although it should.
-Excessively slow first-order ammorack replenishment speed.

4- M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEPv2:
-Hull armor is missing at least ~35% of its KE effectiveness.
-Turret armor is missing ~33% of its KE effectiveness.
-TUSK can not be removed (on SEPv2).

5- M1A1 AIM:
-Hull armor is missing ~35% of its KE effectiveness.

6- Abrams (all):
-Missing front and top fuel tank armor plates.

So… yeah. I am still greatly disappointed that we haven’t seen a single one of these fixes after all this time.

3 Likes
22

Hello everyone, has anyone noticed that you cant pitch up with holding your throttle up key or your free look ? if you have any suggestions on how to fix please reply.

1 Like
23

Going to add “CHARM 3 Should have equal if not better penetration than DM53” and should ignore the effect of Russian APFSDS destroying ERA

And TES and OES should have 84mm (at least) of KE protection and 1200-1800mm Chemical protection for its “ERA” alone, which should be renamed to ASPRO-HMT.

Challenger 2’s hull is 55mm too, I think, not 50

24

Found the issue, some controls got reset to default for some reason which made them conflict.

25

The track jerking while turning for the Challenger 2s is still present, now it cant decide between gears 2 and 3.
Also the Challenger 3TD still has the jerking problem, not deciding between gears 3 and 4.

26

Challenger 3 should definitely get that reload buff, the 3 genuinely feels like a downgrade from the 2E, slower reload and less mobility, for what alil bit more pen? Like that matters when you’ve got hit weak points 95% of the time.

2 Likes
27

If you submit a bug report for it, please can you link it over in the Challenger 2 MBT thread so I can add it to the list

28

Is there a report on that

29

I think this is it: Challenger 2 (TES): Incorrect armour values

1 Like
30

It will be lost in the suggestion pile i believe
Why must we have unless ERA

2 Likes