Jump to content

The Challenger 1


 Share

Should the Challenger 1 be added?  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you approve the addition of the Challenger 1?

    • Yes
    • No (elaborate)
    • If other "modern" MBTs are added (Abrams, Leo 2, T80 etc)
  2. 2. What B.R should it be added for



1 hour ago, Koty1996 said:

 

05.jpg

 

To be fair, this image is of an M1A1 or M1A2, not the original. 

 

And I'm pretty sure the Yellow is a physical component and not air as it is represented as a physical layer in the document. Though I am starting to think that those documents might be missing something (other than the turret front), I just feel like it's meant for disinformation, or public "satisfaction"... If I randomly disappear in a couple days, you know that its wrong :D 

 

And the difference between these modern tanks and the "composite" tanks we have in game is that we know the composition, thickness, and location of all the components within the array. The documents for the T-64A and XYZ-70s are open to the public (not 100% sure about the Chief Mk.10 though), so this is understandable that Gaijin (poorly) modeled them. But we cant say that about tanks like this: The M1 Abrams, FV4030/4 Challenger, Leopard 2, etc. as the documents don't exist to the public, and estimations wont suffice for these tanks; do you think that these current "composite" tanks would have been as well received if they were just estimated tanks with "we think the layers are this thick" measurements? ... after thinking about it, the majority of the community would have no idea, and the few, slightly informed players would still be protesting... I'm depressed now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

Well, again, it does not matter we know how thick it is, if we do not know what it does anyways.

And if we know what it does, do we really need to know how thick it is? :dntknw:

There armour was never penetrated during the Iraq war from the front or from the sides of the turret and upper glacis plate so you could have any armour thickness as long as it is above the highest penetration guns the Iraqis had.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

There armour was never penetrated during the Iraq war from the front or from the sides of the turret and upper glacis plate so you could have any armour thickness as long as it is above the highest penetration guns the Iraqis had.

 

Actually there was one case where an Abrams was penetrated by an unknown large caliber gun, presumably 125mm in caliber. No one knows at which range the shot was made, but given that the T-72M was nowhere to be seen, it's possible that this was at standard combat range.

 

Of course this is only from the turret side.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the highest penetrating KE round Iraqi had was 3BM9. We already have 3BM12.

And that is 9.0

These tanks would be 10.0 or higher. That means quite different guns and projectiles it is supposed to be facing.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Koty1996 said:

Also, the highest penetrating KE round Iraqi had was 3BM9. We already have 3BM12.

And that is 9.0

These tanks would be 10.0 or higher. That means quite different guns and projectiles it is supposed to be facing.

 

I think that’s another reason people keep asking for these tanks: they think they will be stomping their enemies all the time... ‘chuckles’... reminds me of when people complain their Tiger H1 doesn’t fight 75mm Shermans. 

 

In game, the M1 Abrams and Challenger would probably be fighting the T-72A and T-80B, both of which have ammo that would go through the LFP of the M1 and Chally at the ranges we commonly fight at. And if you were to upgrade to the M1A1, you would HAVE TO have the T-72B and T-80U as the M256 has some powerful ammo. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Actually there was one case where an Abrams was penetrated by an unknown large caliber gun, presumably 125mm in caliber. No one knows at which range the shot was made, but given that the T-72M was nowhere to be seen, it's possible that this was at standard combat range.

 

Of course this is only from the turret side.

I was talking about the Chally no the Abrams.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

I was talking about the Chally no the Abrams.

 

roughly the same protection level though

 

except the parts that do not have composite like the entire turret bustle area and the lfp

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

roughly the same protection level though

 

except the parts that do not have composite like the entire turret bustle area and the lfp

The Chally has much better protection as it used the latest Chobham composite whereas the Abrams used an updated Burlington (Abrams were lost whereas no Challys were destroyed).

Edited by Capt_Palmtree
  • Thanks 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

The Chally has much better protection as it used the latest Chobham composite whereas the Abrams used an updated Burlington (Abrams were lost whereas no Challys were destroyed).

 

And if not a single M60 were destroyed, would that atuomatically have superior protection?

 

Seriously, wether or not vehicles are lost is not in any way an accurate representation of a vehicles armour protection.

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

The Chally has much better protection as it used the latest Chobham composite whereas the Abrams used an updated Burlington (Abrams were lost whereas no Challys were destroyed).

 

The British sent far fewer Challengers and used them far less than the M1 Abrams... Also the few tanks the Challenger did engage were measly T-55s and T-62s. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

The Chally has much better protection as it used the latest Chobham composite whereas the Abrams used an updated Burlington (Abrams were lost whereas no Challys were destroyed).

 

Hold on, do you even have any evidence that the specific composite of the CR 1 (which is not Chobham since it's a vague catch them all term but actually an early Dorchester variant) is superior to the composite used on the M1A1? Losses do not exactly count given that pretty much every case of an Abrams being lost involved shots to the side: an area the CR 1 is worse off to begin with due to the RHA turret bustle. I don't recall any Abrams being lost to frontal penetration, and even then it would only take the inhumanely powerful M829A1 to actually go through the front, and it would be done at standard combat range anyway. Also, the frontal LoS thickness of the CR 1's composite modules is around the same as that of the Abrams to begin with, though the CR 1 is riddled with even more weakspots like an RHA LFP and a paper driver hatch area.

 

Yeah, I really don't understand where the better protection comes from other than the CR 1 being bad at everything but that.

Edited by Nope
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nope said:

 

Hold on, do you even have any evidence that the specific composite of the CR 1 (which is not Chobham since it's a vague catch them all term but actually an early Dorchester variant) is superior to the composite used on the M1A1? Losses do not exactly count given that pretty much every case of an Abrams being lost involved shots to the side: an area the CR 1 is worse off to begin with due to the RHA turret bustle. I don't recall any Abrams being lost to frontal penetration, and even then it would only take the inhumanely powerful M829A1 to actually go through the front, and it would be done at standard combat range anyway. Also, the frontal LoS thickness of the CR 1's composite modules is around the same as that of the Abrams to begin with, though the CR 1 is riddled with even more weakspots like an RHA LFP and a paper driver hatch area.

 

Yeah, I really don't understand where the better protection comes from other than the CR 1 being bad at everything but that.

It comes from the PR- and propaganda departments and general hype.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

The Chally has much better protection as it used the latest Chobham composite whereas the Abrams used an updated Burlington (Abrams were lost whereas no Challys were destroyed).

During the Greek armor trials the Challenger 2 surprised the testers by being not better protected than the Leclerc, a vehicle that is 5 tons lighter.  I do not expect the Challenger 1 to have a significantly better armor package compared to the M1 and Leopard 2(A0-A3). Front turret armor distribution seems to be fairly similar compared to the M1 and superior to the Leopard 2.  The hull armor distribution is very similar to the Lecler's, the glacis features the composite blocks.

 

A lot of hype went into believing Challenger 1 and 2 being better protected than its counterparts because of:

 

- It's war record against T-55 and T-62 type tanks.

 

- It's weight (seriously?).

 

- It's mediocre mobility and "focus on protection".

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

During the Greek armor trials the Challenger 2 surprised the testers by being not better protected than the Leclerc, a vehicle that is 5 tons lighter.  I do not expect the Challenger 1 to have a significantly better armor package compared to the M1 and Leopard 2(A0-A3). Front turret armor distribution seems to be fairly similar compared to the M1 and superior to the Leopard 2.  The hull armor distribution is very similar to the Lecler's, the glacis features the composite blocks.

 

A lot of hype went into believing Challenger 1 and 2 being better protected than its counterparts because of:

 

- It's war record against T-55 and T-62 type tanks.

 

- It's weight (seriously?).

 

- It's mediocre mobility and "focus on protection".

 

So basically the k/d meme, the weight meme and by default. Not exactly a stellar tank, but still better than the T-72A I guess.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the Chief mk.10, there wasnt really anything else until the Challenger, so if tier 6 is to expand for brits, i see it highly likely it will come anyway.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2018 at 2:38 PM, Koty1996 said:

There was Chieftain mk.11

besides added TOGS, some were cleared for L26 DUFSAPDS

 

Forgot about that one.

But yeah, After Mk.11, the Challenger was the next MBT in service. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Personally i am a bit conflicted on this. On one hand i would love to see this as I love the Challenger tanks but on the other hand i personally am against the estimation on all information that is needed to properly implement this vehicle into the game.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...