i dont have trouble as the gun manlet is the weak spot of evry leo2 from 10.7 to 12.7, dosnt take that much unless of course you dont want to learn and get better in the game.
ok good to know, can you prove it ? sound like trust me bro
1 Like
so now its your teams fault for you playing bad
1 Like
(He can’t) Both statements were bs. 3BM42 literally can’t pen CR1 turret cheek.
how about we prove t80bvm can’t even stop 3bm42 mango lmao
2 Likes
IDK, the Explicit design requirements for the Challenger 1’s turret to be proof to any Russian APFSDS to atleast as close as 500m.
1 Like
1 Like
3BM60 was not invented in the 1970-1980s.
Sometimes it’s the German teams losing him games, other times are OP USSR tanks.
That guy is on a roll lol.
6 Likes
Do you not know how to read past the first three words you absolute Buffoon?
1 Like
That isn’t even the same spot lmfao.
neither was the challenger 2, and they totally didn’t test Soviet apdsds after the fall of their empire, on the other hand I don’t think the Russians have gotten NATO apfsds to test
This is about the Challenger 1, not the 2.
nice pixel hunting lil bro, try it in battle
typo and is obviously he meant 2 as the 1 was out of service by the time that round entered service…
The entire convo is about the Challenger 1…
LMAO you try to be a smart ass and now that i prove you wrong its my fault that your eyes cant even see the right pixel
3 Likes
lil dude you only proved you’re only capable of debating strawmen in your head and not the argument at hand, that shot is impossible in game lol
With that skill, no wonder you think that.
3 Likes
Actually, Ukraine im pretty sure sold The Brits some of their T-72s, with Atleast 3BM-42 in the late 90s, and used them to do tortue testing for the C1 and c2, and they found that even at POINT BLANK, sub 100m, the Challenger 1s turret face was proof to Mango, even with repeated hits. The Hull front was similar, but the Composite did fail after 3 hits in the same spot.