ground vehicles The Challenger 1

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Rough scale measurement places L23 at 420mm penetration, while L23A1 has 490mm. M833 is closer to 380-400mm.

 

 

No one said that in the thread. There's only parts involving the British never once killing a T-72 as they were unable to encounter them, possibly due to making up a smaller portion of Coalition forces stationed in Iraq. So far, 1st Armoured didn't seem to have destroyed any T-72 tanks at all, with all the T-72Ms facing Abrams tanks instead. The CR 1s might as well have used a 100% HESH loadout at this point.

 

Unless of course, you have a list of 1st Armoured's tank kills in the Gulf War.

 

No one has a list of who killed what...unless anyone here was there and can share some light all we know is 1st armoured was present at the time. but then again D-Day was also an American victory according to a lot of people on here so  the problem lies with the way the MOD release information.

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours ago, *swanseasean96 said:

 

No one has a list of who killed what...unless anyone here was there and can share some light all we know is 1st armoured was present at the time. but then again D-Day was also an American victory according to a lot of people on here so  the problem lies with the way the MOD release information.

 

Just because 1st Armoured was in the battle does not necessarily mean one of the tanks took out a T-72. General consensus from tank nerds on tank nerd forums does suggest that 1st Armoured never faced T-72s however. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case since the British made up a small portion of the Coalition and wouldn't have as good a chance to face T-72s that were less prominent than T-55s and T-62s (the latter being the very tank that was taken out at 4.6 km).

[Capt_Palmtree 377]

9 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

Just because 1st Armoured was in the battle does not necessarily mean one of the tanks took out a T-72. General consensus from tank nerds on tank nerd forums does suggest that 1st Armoured never faced T-72s however. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case since the British made up a small portion of the Coalition and wouldn't have as good a chance to face T-72s that were less prominent than T-55s and T-62s (the latter being the very tank that was taken out at 4.6 km).

The British army was the second largest member of the coalition and definitely saw combat versus T-72s.

[Laviduce 1,779]

59 minutes ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

The British army was the second largest member of the coalition and definitely saw combat versus T-72s.

Challenger 1 did not encounter any T-72 during the Gulf War. Sources: Challenger 1 MBT by Carl Schulze, Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank by Robert Griffin, Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank 1983-2001 by Richard Taylor.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Laviduce

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

39 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Challenger 1 did not encounter any T-72 during the Gulf War. Sources: Challenger 1 MBT by Carl Schulze, Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank by Robert Griffin, Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank 1983-2001 by Richard Taylor.

 

I’m not 100% sure, but weren’t the main users of the T-72 (in the Iraqi army) the republican guard? And didn’t the US engage them most of the time? 

[Laviduce 1,779]

11 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

I’m not 100% sure, but weren’t the main users of the T-72 (in the Iraqi army) the republican guard? And didn’t the US engage them most of the time? 

That is what i heard and read as well.  

[Laviduce 1,779]

 

Hull Details:

 

Challenger 2 hull:

 

 

Jordanian Chieftain:

 

 

Shir 2 prototype:

 

 

 

Challenger 1/Prototype:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Laviduce

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

25 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

 

Hull Details:

 

Challenger 2 hull:

 

 

Jordanian Challenger 1:

 

 

Shir 2 prototype:

 

 

 

Challenger 1/Prototype:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some good useful images here 

[Laviduce 1,779]

Here is a look at the Challenger 1 fuel system:

 

 

Here are the primary tank-killing rounds of the Challenger 1 - the L23A1 and L26A1 APFSDS:

 

 

Here is something about the preferred hull-down fighting style of the Challenger 1:

 

 

Here is some information about the Challenger 1 protection arc:

 

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

+1

[shaboimike 39]

british should get this at 9.3 or the mbt-80 at 9.0 to counter the T-64/xyz-70 spam

[Nope 10,634]

46 minutes ago, shaboimike said:

british should get this at 9.3 or the mbt-80 at 9.0 to counter the T-64/xyz-70 spam

 

You're joking right? The CR 1 is overkill against the T-64A without question, and even when compared to the MBT-70.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

+1 if other tanks like T72, T80, M1, Leo 2 ect are being introduced as well

[shaboimike 39]

This could work at 10.0 but british need a 9,0 counter to the KPZ spam. 

[RefrigerRaider 563]

a bit too soon for this tank.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

On 19.11.2017 at 2:07 AM, RefrigerRaider said:

a bit too soon for this tank.

cuz just because its stuggested means that it will be inroduced to the game instantly. look at the MBT suggestion, when it was started, passed to dev and then implemented. nothing wrong with suggesting those tanks now, dont you think?

On 19.11.2017 at 12:41 AM, shaboimike said:

This could work at 10.0 but british need a 9,0 counter to the KPZ spam. 

10.0+ if so. that thing is not the answer to the KPZ

[Nope 10,634]

3 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

cuz just because its stuggested means that it will be inroduced to the game instantly. look at the MBT suggestion, when it was started, passed to dev and then implemented.

 

and it turned out hilariously op as expected

[Laviduce 1,779]

3 hours ago, Nope said:

 

and it turned out hilariously op as expected

 

On 19.11.2017 at 2:07 AM, RefrigerRaider said:

a bit too soon for this tank.

 

7 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

cuz just because its stuggested means that it will be inroduced to the game instantly. look at the MBT suggestion, when it was started, passed to dev and then implemented. nothing wrong with suggesting those tanks now, dont you think?

10.0+ if so. that thing is not the answer to the KPZ

 

 

I am really getting the strong impression that the Challenger 1, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2(A0/A1) are tier 7 vehicles,

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

5 hours ago, Nope said:

and it turned out hilariously op as expected

modern tank development is not balenced. one tank is designed to kill the other. its always a powercreep, get confi with that

1 hour ago, Laviduce said:

I am really getting the strong impression that the Challenger 1, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2(A0/A1) are tier 7 vehicles,

yep

Edited November 20, 2017 by dotEXCEL

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

2 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

modern tank development is not balenced. one tank is designed to kill the other. its always a powercreep, get confi with that

 

Why don’t some people get comfortable with not getting modern equipment?

 

Double standards much? 

[Nope 10,634]

3 hours ago, dotEXCEL said:

modern tank development is not balenced. one tank is designed to kill the other.

 

Just like in WWII with Panther development sped up to counter the T-34, the 76mm being developed just in case there's bigger fish to fry, the Pzjg I being built just in case of heavy armor in future fronts, the Firefly being developed because the British faced the stronger German tanks more often than the Americans, the Pz IV F2 having a 75mm L/43 because of concerns about the Pz III's 50mm being insufficient against some armor, etc. Nearly all modern MBTs have equivalents (some I can't think of include the Chieftain mk 10), and the MBT-70 and KPz-70 definitely had more proper equivalents with the T-80 what with the difference between penetration+armor vs FCS and mobility. However, the damn things face T-64As because Gaijin can't be bothered to find proper equivalents and many people thought the T-64A was much better than it actually was. The result was very serious disparities in performance between these two tanks and their designated counterparts as I and a few others have predicted a long time ago. I do not give a damn about implementation itself, but only about whether the implementation will not result in taking a massive dump on a meta that already has enough problems.

 

4 hours ago, Laviduce said:

I am really getting the strong impression that the Challenger 1, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2(A0/A1) are tier 7 vehicles,

 

Anything short of a T-64B should not have anything to do with facing these. The T-64BV and T-80B would be more like it, though this changes to the T-64BM Bulat and T-80U when it's the M1A1, CR 2 and Leopard 2A4.

[pieve 3,578]

it's very likely we'll start seeing the Leopard 1A6 120mm along with T-72 in the game.

keep an eye on that month

[sageman901@psn 699]

13 hours ago, pieve said:

it's very likely we'll start seeing the Leopard 1A6 120mm along with T-72 in the game.

keep an eye on that month

hmm interesting 

[Necrons31467 14,236]

BVV_d confirmed an ''early M1'' and ''T-72 Variants'' to be implemented soon, my guess would be on one of the XM1 prototypes and the T-72A, besides that they've also hinted at the T-64B which will likely have the T-64BV as a researchable module (like the BMP-1P).

 

I'm also quite certain that the team sent to the German archives to gather the Kpz-70 armour data were not sent there for that vehicle alone, I wouldn't be suprised to see the Leopard 2AV pop up soon.

 

Inb4 Britain and Japan get left in the dust even further....

 

On 20-11-2017 at 6:44 PM, dotEXCEL said:

modern tank development is not balenced. one tank is designed to kill the other. its always a powercreep, get confi with that

yep

 

Doesn't mean you can't pick appropriately balanced vehicles from a certain era, they could've simply stopped at the early/mid 1950's, which would've been quite balanced, yes, the Germans would rely on foreign tanks, but that's better than the constant power creep we have right now IMO.

 

T-54 Mod. '51

T-10

- vs -

Centurion Mk. 10

Conqueror

- vs -

M47

M103

- vs -

mKpz-70

Maus/E-100

 

 

 

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, Necrons31467 said:

Doesn't mean you can't pick appropriately balanced vehicles from a certain era, they could've simply stopped at the early/mid 1950's, which would've been quite balanced, yes, the Germans would rely on foreign tanks, but that's better than the constant power creep we have right now IMO.

 

Stopping at the Leopard 1A1 would have been more than enough as there's a good equivalence in power there. The second option is to stop shortly after WWII, with the USSR stopping with the T-44-100 and IS-3, the Germans having their Panther Ausf F and Tiger II H, the US having the M46 and T32 (maybe T29), the UK having the Centurion and Caernarvon and Japan having the Type 61 because they have no choice otherwise. It would have been reasonably balanced from there perhaps, except for Japan.