Lets not forget the new abrams hou guys got dont fit on the landing craft that have been meticulously designed…
plenty of photos of the two that were lost, versus 30 something abrams and lord knows how many leopards
1 Like
→
1 Like
just ignore kursk why not
It was used to break through the kursk line as a frontline attack tank and thats when tbe 2nd one was.lost.
Thats what 3 CR2s its.entire service life?
Stop clutching at straws mate.
1 Like
“It’s entire service life” lol. Just like the Leopard and Abrams half of the CR2 service life was sitting around or stomping tanks that were decades older than itself.
If it was truely such a great universal tank that everyone should buy, it wouldn’t have failed so many export trials. There is a reason why most of these trials were won by the Leopards.
But regardless I don’t want myself or the thread to get nuked so I’ll end my side with that.
1 Like
How many export trials.
Cause when folks say that they tend to jump.to the old greek one ,in which the CR2E had old outdated ammo.
Yet when in a real modern situation against tanks more.modern it is performing better than the other nato tanks.
Considering they lost almost all their 31 abrams.and only 2 cr2s says a lot.
Is jt perfect ? Fk no.
But acting like its a bad tank is extemely poor spirited especially with the ones serving on them.
In both cases.
1 Like
True, but until we know how much they deployed the Abrams and Challenger 2 these numbers are half the picture.
It’s not a bad tank, but if the Challenger 2 was truely as good as a lot of the British mains (not you, but we both know who these people are) on this forum make it out to be, then surely more nations would want to use it.
1 Like
Other nations do use it! not many but it is used by others.
the biggest issue isn’t the actual tank itself its the fking stupid logistics behind it E.G the non standardisation of its barrel etc.
2 Likes
Correction. We are aware of its limitations, but there are many who seem to consider it DOA even back when it was new.
The issue is that Gaijin believes this rederict that it is entirely and completely DOA and has been for 30 years and therefore should be modeled that way. There is enough reports, several pretty major, that would keep it competitive in game
Britain wanted to keep HESH. It proved highly valuable in OP Granby and was an incredibly potent tool in tank vs tank combat because its effective damage doesnt change with range. If you hit the target, you damage/kill the target. But a lot has changed in the last 30 years, and such capabilties are less valuable. Want the same range, you just park an Ajax Overwatch and sling a load of Brimstones down range, at ranges even greater than HESH.
2 Likes
The duration isn’t the issue here…Note that I used the word “gall”
Right because there’s no heated and sensitive history between India and the UK either…
I mean its got Something likr half its IRL armour values on the actual composites and then all the jargin with its era
Yeah, exactly. I dont think its unreasoanble to consider it mostly on par with things like the Abrams and Leopards interms of protection.
1 Like
Its ahead of the earlier.models.of both, the sepv3 and 2a7 or 8 brought the leopards up to par.
It did however fall shy on top end speed and overall logistics due to tbe rifled barrel.
Yeah, though top speed isnt necessarily that big of an issue IRL as it was designed for more defensive situations (and in game shouldnt be used to compare as its missing 100 bhp) and the barrel was down to the desire to maintain HESH. Which proved its value in Op Granby and had some considerable tactical advantages. Its just a shame HESH is massively nerfed in game,
1 Like
Yeah folks overlook the suspension as well, IRL.it maintains constant speeds usually over most terrain.
Bar ofc if it bogs down.
Oh i know why we had the barrel,.im just stating logistically it made rhe tank a headache for anyone who realistically wasn’t using the hesh, or the training rounds to break down walls!.
Yeah. I think it was a smart decision when being developed with available information at the time. But that changed quite quickly in the early 2000s. Especially as development started before the USSR Collapse and a war with the soviets was still on the table
Honestly as a Canadian I feel the same way you do, and I know it’s a very unpopular opinion.
If we’re not getting a full tree/combined CA/AU/NZ tree, just put stuff wherever it was built.
Also the US subtree idea absolutely not, of all the nations who need subtrees US and USSR are second last and last respectively.
I agree with the former, but I doubt that tanks like the 2A7 and SEPv3 are just “up to par” with the CR2, I think they exceed it.
Both of them received new armor packages relatively recently. Unless Britain in the 90s was 20 years ahead of every other NATO nation in terms of armor and protection.