Yes, but as i remember with lower pen (?)
It had higher pen than now.
I won’t argue, as I might not remember such details.
However, from the side of the tank, which was mainly the MBT and the US at that time, the fight against the T-64A was balanced – you had the usual weak spots, but the MBT was also easy to kill if you aimed.
From the T-64A’s side, it was actually similar – the main advantage of the MBT/KPz was mobility – it fired a shot and disappeared.
Should see the stack of bug reports accepted for the Challenger 2’s that have been left to rot for +2yrs as well. Sorry if it’s not Russian we’re not fixing it
2 Likes
They still havent given the T-54 its correct turret traverse, and the T-44 had no roof armour for a while.
What “correct” turret traverse is it supposed to have?
According to Pavlov’s book on 1945-1965 tanks T-54’s EPB-4 (implemented in 1949 T-54, before it was EPB-1) had exactly 10 degrees of horizontal traverse - that is the same value as in game.
The Challenger 2 is “well armoured” depending in your definition or meaning of “well armoured”. When used in its design doctrine or hull down, it is very much well armoured. You cant hull down in war thunder though, or barely hull down, you more do the technique of Ridging.
If your definition of well armoured is less weak spots then sure, but is that being in or out of your tanks designed doctrine? Challenger 2 in its actual designed doctrine is well armoured
If your definition is actually good armour plating, then Challenger 2 still fits that, Chobam Dorchester is the best tank armour of that generation.
Is your definition of well armoured including add-on armour like russia? If not, then Russia is the laughable one if they are not already.
Challenger 2’s fighting doctrine is sitting hull down, in a tree line 3 miles back for days on end, waiting for a russian armoured tank column to come along, shoot at at them, destroy them, move positions and repeat. Or, same situation, firing HESH as infantry support at buildings, fortifications and tranches.
And, its charge bags (the actual explosives) are below the neck/in the hull, so if its hull down and does get hit, the ammo isn’t getting hit and the spalling isn’t going to pen and/or detonate the armoured storage bins containing the charge bags.
So yes, NATO does have well armoured MBT’s.
1 Like
Challenger has bogus hull frontal geometry and missing entire armour plates still in it’s side armour. IT’s NERA side modules act like ERA that doesn’t work, it shouldn’t detonate when hit. Missing lower glacis spall liner.
Spall liners everywhere in NATO stuff just missing non existent in damage models.
2 Likes
And wont get fixed even with bug reports and even after multiple years
1 Like
IRL:
Someone on YT explained it pretty well, in short it is just that NATO does modifications and upgrades inside the tank to increase the armor while Russia does internal + external additions like newer types of ERAs and all for the same purpose. Changes on Russian tanks are much easily visible but not so much on NATO MBTs (stuff like better composites etc.) and it is all classified. I have a feeling that the devs have better sources for the Russian MBTs than sources for NATO ones.
On the in game part:
IDK how long have you been playing but I am 9.7 on Germany and armor has already left the importance for me, it sometimes gets annoying when you get LOLpenned by an SPAA (you have to learn where the AMMO is stored on them and get the first shot). I have some experience in playing Soviet tanks (the German T-72 at 9.3) and overall I always prefer the Leopard 1A5 and KPz-70 because of the mobility and maneuverability they allow which is unmatched.
In short: Don’t get shot and trust the mobility
1 Like
While it’s true that Devs have more information about Russian Tanks they still have more than enough information about NATO tanks to model them more accurately.
For example they already know Leopard2A7V’s armor underperforming a lot or Leo2PL and 2A4M lacks spall liners in game despite having irl, they just dont want to take action.
They know NATO tanks superior to current modern Russian tanks in most ways so they decided to keep them in current situation in order provide more balanced environment but they fail to do that.
3 Likes
Strongest M829A1 vs. weakest T-80. This is War Thunder in a nutshell in 2026 folks.
2 Likes
Ironic coming from a walking corporation advert.
As much as i dont like those type of squadron names yours isntly exactly better either considering your name is tied to one of the worst Russian commander who’s famous for bein torturing and killing civillians/ POWS.
1 Like
The name of the dude he was shooting at is “Lolicon Private”.
So I would really reconsider if I was you
When you see a word Motorola and your first thought is about some commander…
1 Like
I wouldn’t, they both should get Gaijin’d as much as possible.
1 Like
And? This doesnt change the fact that your nickname is tied one of the worst commander in this world.
The name is not known by pretty much anybody, anywhere, to be associated with that russian. You are citing extremely niche information. This is like saying somebody named Jeffrey is named after Dahmer, except that would make more sense because people actually know who Dahmer is.
That nickname is pretty famous if you have little bit information about Russian military or follow news rather than celebrity type of bs’s buddy.