tanks/vehicles Vickers Mk.7/2 (1985)

[Royale_Griffon 14]

+1 

[WaitingFox 2]

Since Germany already has the Leopard A2 and 2k in the line. This Tank should be placed along after the Conqueror Heavy Tank, tree branch. Another reason is because there is already a Vickers MBT before conqueror so all the more merrier.

 

MK.7 should be added instead of Mk.4 due to well terribly armour protection (Aluminium hull)

 

So I fully support this!

 

1+

[omnipotank 826]

I would love this after the conqueror at tier 6 that way I don't have to get the challenger, which is awful

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

This tank should definately be added to the tree after the conqueror. 9.7 or 10.0 BR as it's faster and also better armoured than the challenger 1 in the turret front, hull front and hull sides. As modifications this tank should also get the choice of picking what gun it could have equipped so L11A5, GIAT 120 and Rh120 L44. All 3 of those guns are in game currently so that would mean not much work would be needed. Though once you pick a gun for it you can't change it back or maybe a lion cost of 100k lions to swap guns. So you would have to decide which ammunition you would want upon making your gun choice. If you picked the L11A5 you would get hesh(stock shell), L23A1(stock shell) and L26A1 tier 2 modification. Rh120 DM12 heat(stock shell), DM13(stock shell) and DM23 APFSDS tier 2 modification. GIAT 120mm OCC 120 G1 heat (stock shell) and OFL 120 G1 tier 1 modification.

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

On 30/06/2018 at 11:32, *oppsijustkilledu said:

This tank should definately be added to the tree after the conqueror. 9.7 or 10.0 BR as it's faster and also better armoured than the challenger 1 in the turret front, hull front and hull sides. As modifications this tank should also get the choice of picking what gun it could have equipped so L11A5, GIAT 120 and Rh120 L44. All 3 of those guns are in game currently so that would mean not much work would be needed. Though once you pick a gun for it you can't change it back or maybe a lion cost of 100k lions to swap guns. So you would have to decide which ammunition you would want upon making your gun choice. If you picked the L11A5 you would get hesh(stock shell), L23A1(stock shell) and L26A1 tier 2 modification. Rh120 DM12 heat(stock shell), DM13(stock shell) and DM23 APFSDS tier 2 modification. GIAT 120mm OCC 120 G1 heat (stock shell) and OFL 120 G1 tier 1 modification.

 

Bit over-complicated. I'd just put the L11A5 one in initially, since that's the gun the British were interested in using on it. Provided L23A1 is fixed to its historical 490mm penetration though.

 

The others can be event vehicles or something, better them than more nonsense "this unique vehicle can't be gotten by 99% of the playerbase" stuff.

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

On 02/07/2018 at 12:59, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

Bit over-complicated. I'd just put the L11A5 one in initially, since that's the gun the British were interested in using on it. Provided L23A1 is fixed to its historical 490mm penetration though.

 

The others can be event vehicles or something, better them than more nonsense "this unique vehicle can't be gotten by 99% of the playerbase" stuff.

Well even if it does get penetration fixed it will still be on the low end of top tier APFSDS. It will only be better than DM13, Russian APFSDS and the other 105 APFSDS at angles. The DM23,JM33, French baguette will still out perform it at angles and against flat armour. If the L23A1 get fixed it's flat armour pnlenetrstion will go down to 410mm but it's angled penetration upto 239mm at 60.

[Capt_Palmtree 377]

7 hours ago, *oppsijustkilledu said:

Well even if it does get penetration fixed it will still be on the low end of top tier APFSDS. It will only be better than DM13, Russian APFSDS and the other 105 APFSDS at angles. The DM23,JM33, French baguette will still out perform it at angles and against flat armour. If the L23A1 get fixed it's flat armour pnlenetrstion will go down to 410mm but it's angled penetration upto 239mm at 60.

Have you even looked at the sources for L23A1?  It will go up to 490mm.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Capt_Palmtree

[swpixy 1,220]

8 hours ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

Have you even looked at the sources for L23A1?  It will go up to 490mm.

...Against a 60° plate.Not against a vertical plate.

Spoiler

http://www.steelbeasts.com/uploads/monthly_2017_08/L23_info.jpg.c071988322bec78ce66011476575d1da.jpg

 

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

On 09/07/2018 at 17:04, Capt_Palmtree said:

Have you even looked at the sources for L23A1?  It will go up to 490mm.

Yes I have. I'm one of the ones helping with L23A1 bug report. We have figured outs penetration using the dimensions of the round. LONG ROF PENETRATORS CANNOT PENETRATE MORE THAN THEIR LENGTH AGAINST FLAT ARMOUR. The L23A1 at a angle of 60° penetrates 480mm of LOS armour. At 68° it's 520mm LOS of penetration. At 0 It can only pen 410mm.

16 hours ago, swpixy said:

...Against a 60° plate.Not against a vertical plate.

  Hide contents

http://www.steelbeasts.com/uploads/monthly_2017_08/L23_info.jpg.c071988322bec78ce66011476575d1da.jpg

 

Don't use steel beasts it's not a accurate source

[swpixy 1,220]

1 hour ago, *oppsijustkilledu said:

Don't use steel beasts it's not a accurate source

Im not using Steelbeasts as a source.It just so happened that the picture of the L23A1 table was posted on the SB forums-If you had opened the link,you would have seen that.

[Loongsheep 5,339]

British tree desperately needs a competitive top tier tank and the 98% approval rate on this post supports it.

 

In comparison to the Leopard 2A4:

 

+ Better turret armor

+ Survivability (different ammo rack for separate charge ammo)

+ Less turret weakspot

-----

- Slower reload (unless Gaijin gives it Rh120 or French 120, which is unlikely)

- Less powerful APFSDS (no L26, Leo2 might get DM33)

- Larger silhouette

 

Also a quote from someone involved (unverified info, just read it for fun):

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/desert-leopard.36092/

Quote

Hi

I was actually involved with this project from the word go.
It is a leo2 Hull and a vickers/Marconi Radar designed turret.
It was a follow on from the Vickers Mark 4 Valiant.

The reason it was developed was at that time Chieftain and the 4030 built for the Shah of Iran were the only vehicles they had to offer. The Shah's tanks with mods ended up being the Challenger 1 when the Shah's order was cancelled on his expulsion from Iran.

The Egyptians in particular wanted a tank as did a number of Middle Eastern countries and as Germany had restictions on arms sales Kraus Maffi and Vickers produced the Mk7.

The turret was fitted with a RO 120mm smooth bore and Marconi Radar, later Marconi Command and Control, developed a new Digital Fire Control System and a Solid State Gun Control System. Both very revolutionary at the time.

The shooting capability of the turret was second to none at the time and it performed extremely well especially against the Abrahms. The vehicle was tested by the Gypos and there were some problems with the hull, engine overheating, in the desert and the prototype turret had some problems but not too many considering it was very much a prototype and the electronics were only in the early prototype stage.

The Gypos ran out on money so it was canned but the turret was the basis for further development by both companies and formed the basis of the Challenger 2. Unfortunately Vickers decided to use the Americain CDC Fire Control System out of the M1 but retained the Solid State GCE.

Marconi went on to develop a Weapon Control System for a Brazilain company Engasa for the Osorio MBT. It won a contract for 318 vehicles but that contract was cancelled due to Gulf War 1 and the Suadis bought or were basically given M1.

The WCS was superb. It had a stabilised Gunners sight, Panoramis stabilised Cpmmanders sight and a stabilised panoramic TI sight. - not bad for the 1990's.

I personally saw the Marconi system shoot **** out of the prototype Challenger 2s at Bovington in 1990/91. It was the very best system around and I think it wouls still give M1 Leo 2 and anything else around today a pasting. Trouble is armies buy what the polititians want and not necessarily what is best.

And no , the turret did not accidently swing towards the spectators.... that was some bloody squaddie having his bit of fun. I think hos arse will still be stinging after the kicking he got!

 

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

still all for the mk.7/2. the Chally 1 mk.2 is just a bad tank and the mk.7/2 would make for one of the best 10.0 tanks.

[omnipotank 826]

On 15/07/2018 at 02:00, Loongsheep said:

British tree desperately needs a competitive top tier tank and the 98% approval rate on this post supports it.

 

In comparison to the Leopard 2A4:

 

+ Better turret armor

+ Survivability (different ammo rack for separate charge ammo)

+ Less turret weakspot

-----

- Slower reload (unless Gaijin gives it Rh120 or French 120, which is unlikely)

- Less powerful APFSDS (no L26, Leo2 might get DM33)

- Larger silhouette

 

Also a quote from someone involved (unverified info, just read it for fun):

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/desert-leopard.36092/

 

Slower reload . . . Uh, 10 rounds a minute with ready rack is how fast challenger could load.

[Loongsheep 5,339]

3 hours ago, omnipotank said:

Slower reload . . . Uh, 10 rounds a minute with ready rack is how fast challenger could load.

That is lap loading speed, unsafe and generally discouraged.

The Leopard 2 can do at least 12 rounds a minute if the loader leaves the ammo door open as well.

 

Warthunder uses continuous (not wearing out the loader) loading speed. If max short-term loading speed is used most guns will be faster by a good margin.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

On 15/05/2018 at 17:50, Time4Tea said:

I assume you're referring to the Challenger 2? As 1200hp was fine for a 62 ton Challenger 1. In the Challenger 2's case the engine might be a bit under-powered. As for the chassis however, I'm not sure what the problem is, the only times it has been penetrated (as far as I know) is through the belly which was reinforced after the incident.

 

To be fair, it hasn't exactly been shot at by state of the art weapons, instead it's faced T-55's, RPG's and T-62's, both tank using heavily out-dated ammunitions.

 

Oh, and the single tank lost in combat was due to non-isolated ammunition storage, yet another drawback.

 

On 16/05/2018 at 11:22, TheFuzzieOne said:

It's mostly just people trying to exaggerate the Challengers "issues" as usual. If anyone thinks the Challenger is "slow", then I advise them to go out and actually operate beside the things, or witness them moving from a ground level. Especially off-road, they are anything but "slow". Tanks with 1,500hp engines will out accelerate them, sure, but you have to remember that people online only ever play tank top trumps. Whatever isn't the literal highest number is automatically crap, apparently, despite them never having driven it or likely even been beside them while they're moving.

 

 

 

Funny you should say that, that there's a British serviceman pointing out how lacking the Challenger 2's mobility is compared to contemporary tanks.

 

Quote

They can't grasp that "slower" doesn't mean "slow".

 

Yes, it does mean slow, the only way it isn't able to be considered slow is if we compare it against tanks made 50 years ago, yet when compared against modern tanks like the M1A2's, Leclercs, Merkava's, etc, it is unquestionably slow in comparison.

 

Even the British MOD seemed to agree that the Challenger was dated in the mobility department as the Challenger 2E was meant to mount the German MTU engine, but ofcourse, budget cuts struck once more.

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Necrons31467

[omnipotank 826]

1 hour ago, Loongsheep said:

That is lap loading speed, unsafe and generally discouraged.

The Leopard 2 can do at least 12 rounds a minute if the loader leaves the ammo door open as well.

 

Warthunder uses continuous (not wearing out the loader) loading speed. If max short-term loading speed is used most guns will be faster by a good margin.

Lap loading with apfsds is unsafe? Didn't know that. The warhead is inert and does not weigh that much.

[Loongsheep 5,339]

4 minutes ago, omnipotank said:

Lap loading with apfsds is unsafe? Didn't know that. The warhead is inert and does not weigh that much.

Lap-loading risks dropping part of the 3-pieces round into the hull, which can be a safety hazard on a tank with moving components such as the turret ring.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Loongsheep

[TasteTheTea 3,203]

42 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

To be fair, it hasn't exactly been shot at by state of the art weapons, instead it's faced T-55's, RPG's and T-62's, both tank using heavily out-dated ammunitions.

I assumed the person I replied to was thinking about the driver's port and lower glacis weak-spots when criticizing the Challenger 2's chassis. I wanted to point out that despite those weak-spots, the only place the tank has been penetrated by enemy fire was in the belly - not one of the usual weak-spots that get pointed out.

 

42 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

Even the British MOD seemed to agree that the Challenger was dated in the mobility department as the Challenger 2E was meant to mount the German MTU engine, but ofcourse, budget cuts struck once more.

The Challenger 2E was a BAE export product isn't it? I didn't think the MoD would have a say on that. AFAIK the MTU is part of the TES upgrade package for the Challenger 2 - that might just be limited to "Megatron" though.

 

Edit: Couple of sources for that last bit:

 

http://fighting-vehicles.com/challenger-2-megatron/

 

https://quillorcapture.com/2017/07/28/meet-megatron-the-british-armys-tank-transformer/

Edited July 16, 2018 by Time4Tea

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

On 16/07/2018 at 18:31, Necrons31467 said:

To be fair, it hasn't exactly been shot at by state of the art weapons, instead it's faced T-55's, RPG's and T-62's, both tank using heavily out-dated ammunitions.

 

And a MILAN ATGM, not to mention its highlight likely it faced other ATGMs in Iraq, since the Iraqi forces had many other types in service.

 

Quote

Oh, and the single tank lost in combat was due to non-isolated ammunition storage, yet another drawback.

 

If you read the actual report, it wasn't because it "ammo racked" like a video game. The split ammo and protected racks did their job. It didn't just go up in an instant, it was the ongoing fire that eventually detonated them. Two crewman wouldn't have survived elsewise. It's not as good as an Abrams bustle only type, but it's a lot better than some give it credit for in permitting some survival.

 

Quote

Funny you should say that, that there's a British serviceman pointing out how lacking the Challenger 2's mobility is compared to contemporary tanks.

 

Matsimus is a hideous source for much of anything. He makes several, and numerous, major errors in his videos regarding British equipment. And I guess by your logic that means Death Traps is also completely accurate then? Note that Matsimus has limited experience of in field observation of other tanks, and is not a tank crewman.

 

Quote

Yes, it does mean slow, the only way it isn't able to be considered slow is if we compare it against tanks made 50 years ago, yet when compared against modern tanks like the M1A2's, Leclercs, Merkava's, etc, it is unquestionably slow in comparison.

 

Again, "slower" does not mean "slow", except in arbitrary internet top trumps. Its kept pace with operations in every operation its been in, including one of the fastest armoured advances in history during the Gulf War. Simply looking at "top speed" and seeing one has a lower number is a hideously oversimplified way to say "must be crap then", when operational reality shows its never had an issue and has met expectation every time.

 

Quote

Even the British MOD seemed to agree that the Challenger was dated in the mobility department as the Challenger 2E was meant to mount the German MTU engine, but ofcourse, budget cuts struck once more.

 

And again you're extrapolating things from where there isn't. The 2E wasn't designed or mandated by the MoD. it was BAE/Vickers who marketed it. That doesn't mean anybody thought it was "dated". Improvement does not imply the previous was bad or that they "agree" with your assumptive opinions.

Edited July 18, 2018 by TheFuzzieOne

[HERTZMAND 3,260]

We need this, absolutly! Challenger is the worse at 9.7-10.0 tanks: stock APDS, slower than counterparts and the frontal hull armour is a joke.

 

+1!

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

10 hours ago, HERTZMAND said:

We need this, absolutly! Challenger is the worse at 9.7-10.0 tanks: stock APDS, slower than counterparts and the frontal hull armour is a joke.

 

+1!

 

In fairness the frontal hull armour of pretty much anything is a joke in the game against whats being fired at the ranges they are.

[Boamere 360]

Gaijin if you would have a look at this suggestion it'd be great. A speedy well armoured tank would a fantastic top tier tank for britain, please consider adding this!

[DELTACLUSTER 1,734]

On 18/07/2018 at 10:30, TheFuzzieOne said:

Its kept pace with operations in every operation its been in, including one of the fastest armoured advances in history during the Gulf War. 

 

The Challenger really isn't "slow". In the game it a bit slower than what it should be, but that is down to the driver being horrible when it comes to shifting and the lack of a modelled hydrogas suspension, which would allow the vehicle to move much quicker over rough terrain, since the suspension would damp quite a lot of bouncing and wiggling.

 

Challenger 1 was even reported to be so fast that it outran much lighter vehicles like the Warriors. xxxx Taylor (Oh dear, unfortunately the authors forename gets censored ) states in the Challenger 1 Owners' workshop manual that the Warriors could simply not keep up with the Challenger 1s hydrogas suspension. 

 

 

But on the original Topic: I'd also like to see the Vickers Mk. 7/2. It is too early for the CR2 and the time until the CR1 is fixed is much more easily sustained when there's another thing to look forward to. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by DELTACLUSTER

[Guest EmperorAquaFresh]

I don’t like the centurions much, but occasionally play them. I play mostly the  conqueror and Vickers MBT.  I think if they add this in it would add more variety to lineups and balance tier 6 and make it more fun. 

 

We can only wait and hope that this tank is added in the future.

[Matt_82 1,096]

It kinda sucks that we'd need to rely on a prototype to make a nation competitive and certain tiers but that's just the reality of the situation.  That vehicles that Britain used just don't sit well in the game and balance must be the priority.  Other nations have prototypes to fill gaps so I think this is a necessity to making Britain competitive at top tier.