Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is it true? I've been away for a while but seen the Chally 2 on U tube. Is it playable yet?

Hi

There is a challanger.non playable at the moment.but very well modelled

And its not official yet but a playable version on the next upgrade has been talked about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is official. The next upgrade will make it playable. Before that however, there will be a patch 2.547 to fix issues with target recognition by computer-controlled units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of some pics.i seen a couple from ITEC posting i would love to see the interior

And will the turret interior be up to the high standards of the leopard2E and m1.

{Worth a try. ha }

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any chance of some pics.i seen a couple from ITEC posting i would love to see the interior

And will the turret interior be up to the high standards of the leopard2E and m1.

{Worth a try. ha }

Aehm...No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And “all things come to he who waits“. :)

or perhaps “a watched pot never boils” is more appropriate here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And “all things come to he who waits“. :)

or perhaps “a watched pot never boils” is more appropriate here?

May be so. but if your not in you cant win,he who dares wins.and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gday. Since we're not getting the Chally2 interior in the next upgrade will we finally see the Leo2A4 interior?? Please please please :) Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shall see.

For the Challenger however, only sights for the gunner, and vision blocks/unbuttoned position for the commander. No 3D interior without support from the UK MoD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We shall see.

For the Challenger however, only sights for the gunner, and vision blocks/unbuttoned position for the commander. No 3D interior without support from the UK MoD.

...What about the commanders SAGEM VS 580-10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been 3d depictions of the interior before, but very basic and limited to photo mosaics. I think the problem here is the demand to measure the interior of the machine, which clearly is not something the MOD is going to allow, unless you are a scrapman of course....

Have you considered asking the Tank Museum to measure the interior of theirs? Im not sure how complete it is, but as far as internal dimensions, it should be near identical.

The other thing I was going to ask, is there any possiblity of modelling the Selex enforcer, as some Challenger2s were fitted with in Iraq? Even using the one you have already developed for the Mastiff would probably be close enough as a stopgap.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/SELEX_Galileo_Awarded_Contract_For_ENFORCER_Weapon_Stations_999.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is official. The next upgrade will make it playable. Before that however, there will be a patch 2.547 to fix issues with target recognition by computer-controlled units.

Interesting to read about this patch.

Could you comment a bit more on these issues re. AI-target recognition, Ssnake ?

Or to put it otherwise, when writing a scenario today, are these issues something that we should take into account (and try to compensate for it) ?

Also, any (vague) idea already for the release-date of this patch - or not yet ?

THX,

Koen

Edited by Koen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is official. The next upgrade will make it playable. Before that however, there will be a patch 2.547 to fix issues with target recognition by computer-controlled units.

Just curious, is there some military customer behind the 3d modelisation of the chally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Crewable C2 confirmed? Does this mean the T-72 is coming as well, or was there a shift in priorities? Was the C2 commissioned by the UK, or was it an independent project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well "crewable" in that you can look through the gunner's sight.

Not "crewable" in that you have all the turret interior, etc. like on other vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious, is there some military customer behind the 3d modelisation of the chally?

I think not, just like 2S1, M109.

Just a matter of time and references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the current AI-only Challenger is modelled with the early, weak gun the Brits were experimenting with, right? Will the playable Chally in the next upgrade come in versions with upgraded guns? It has a thick skin right now, but it really needs an adequate fang. It makes me smile whenever I use Challengers in some scenarios where I replace existing AI MBTs with Challys, that althpough they do not get easily destroyed and stubbornly hold out when under fire they nevertheless see T80s and T72s racing by or overrolling them because their light guns can't kill them in time. They hit them for sure, yes - but too often not for killing effect until they are ridiculously close. The hit targets simply roll on at distances where a Leo2 or Abrams already would have pierced them to death.

I have not compared it, but it seems to me their gun is even weaker than the 105mm of the Leo-1 right now. Give the Challenger some fangs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could do so, but while there has been a bit of a debate about it, I stand by my position that the facts do not support the idea that the APFSDS rounds of the Challenger are substantially better than our current model suggests. Unfortunately I cannot disclose my sources in this case, but I can assure you that I have no reason to doubt their competence, or to suspect a bias, and I trust the quality of their data more than what I have been presented elsewhere.

That doesn't mean that there is certainty about the performance of the CHARM1 and CHARM3 rounds. It's just that in the light of all aspects I find our current model vastly more credible than what I have heard from those who suggest that the CHAM3 is much better. You will have to trust me on that, as much as I hate to say this. I would rather disclose the arguments, but I had to promise not to (for reasons other than what most of you will probably suspect - my sources for this do not involve any UK Army service personnel or other insider).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the current AI-only Challenger is modelled with the early, weak gun the Brits were experimenting with, right? Will the playable Chally in the next upgrade come in versions with upgraded guns? It has a thick skin right now, but it really needs an adequate fang. It makes me smile whenever I use Challengers in some scenarios where I replace existing AI MBTs with Challys, that althpough they do not get easily destroyed and stubbornly hold out when under fire they nevertheless see T80s and T72s racing by or overrolling them because their light guns can't kill them in time. They hit them for sure, yes - but too often not for killing effect until they are ridiculously close. The hit targets simply roll on at distances where a Leo2 or Abrams already would have pierced them to death.

I have not compared it, but it seems to me their gun is even weaker than the 105mm of the Leo-1 right now. Give the Challenger some fangs!

There is another thread somewhere on why this is so. The issue has to do with estimates, caseless versus cased ammo, and the fact that the MoD is ultra secretive. It may change one day (anything is possible), but it will not be because people simply want it to be more powerful -- it would be only if better information is made available. ;)

Also, it is not a great comparison to make with the 105mm gun on the Leopard. That particular gun uses cased ammo and, from what I can understand, can therefore have a much longer penetrator. Also, the ammo that you are thinking of (PPTFS DM 64C LS) is a modern/current construction. It has a penetration power of 600mm RHAe (KE), and the Challenger 2's 1999 CHARM3 has 500mm RHAe (KE). Whether the latter should be +/- 50 is one thing, but the over all estimate is certainly comparable to the PPTFS DM 64C LS, IMO.

There have been 3d depictions of the interior before, but very basic and limited to photo mosaics. I think the problem here is the demand to measure the interior of the machine, which clearly is not something the MOD is going to allow, unless you are a scrapman of course....

True, but that is only half of it. Any interior pictures I ever saw of the Challenger 2 had whole areas blacked out/censored as if it was the interior of the B-2 Stealth Bomber. Needless to say, that is not very helpful either. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not criticising SBP's Challenger cannon modelling, I am not competent to compare it to reality, I just recall a very early thread about it that said that it is being modelled with an early gun of the Brits that by now they even do no longer use with the C2. If I recall it correctly, that is. I also remember to have read something like this on some site, saying that they experiemnted with a new gun when the early C2s came out. Like the M1 in SBP is available in three models with two different cannons now, I wonder if we will see that for the C2, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not criticising SBP's Challenger cannon modelling, I am not competent to compare it to reality, I just recall a very early thread about it that said that it is being modelled with an early gun of the Brits that by now they even do no longer use with the C2. If I recall it correctly, that is. I also remember to have read something like this on some site, saying that they experiemnted with a new gun when the early C2s came out. Like the M1 in SBP is available in three models with two different cannons now, I wonder if we will see that for the C2, too.

Hmm, maybe so. After all the gun on the Challenger 2 is 120mm as opposed to the Leopard 1's 105mm, but the caliber size doesn't always translate for KE type rounds (it is the length and diameter of the sub-caliber projectile that matters, but I only casually read about this stuff out of personal interest).

BTW, I believe this is the original 20 or so page thread about it where this and other stuff was discussed. It might make for some good reading: :biggrin:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=15164&highlight=Challenger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which I believe brings us back to Chally using 2 piece ammunition, hence shorter dart (or Fin), hence KE performance not as good as same diameter fixed ammunition.

There were trials of the 120mm smooth bore gun but that required new ammo storage for the fixed rounds and I think pretty much rebuilding the vehicle to accommodate it, so it was not proceeded with.

All a bit academic now as the Govt has closed the plant that makes Chally ammo anyway. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which I believe brings us back to Chally using 2 piece ammunition, hence shorter dart (or Fin), hence KE performance not as good as same diameter fixed ammunition.

There were trials of the 120mm smooth bore gun but that required new ammo storage for the fixed rounds and I think pretty much rebuilding the vehicle to accommodate it, so it was not proceeded with.

All a bit academic now as the Govt has closed the plant that makes Chally ammo anyway. :)

Im not entirely sure thats the case. I understood they had shut the plant that made the bagged charges for Challenger2 (along with the explosive to detonate the nuclear deterrent interestingly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROF_Bridgwater

Im not aware the actual rounds for those guns have ever been made anywhere else than the UK. In fact I understand L23 was still being made last I heard. Not sure about HESH, but they did have a big stockpile of that anyway.

Im not going to get into the debate about ammunition again, because I dont see as it serves much purpose. That L26 (Charm1) and L28 isnt modelled at all doesnt make it easier to assess the figures in comparison to published data. Ive been given the impression L28 was to become the current service round and was reputed to be rather better than L27, so it would be good to see it some day.

What is modelled in Steel Beasts appears to be the L30 as fielded by Challenger2, and still used today. There was no early gun, unless you count the field test guns whose designation I forget (XL28 may have been one) that never were fitted to tanks. What WAS going on was a project to get the Rhinemetal smoothbore gun as fitted to Leopard2 into Challenger2. They succeeded, in one prototype. Then MOD shut it down and prefered to funnel the money into other projects. So Challenger2 will likely soldier on with L30.

Before we write off L30 as ineffective, its not like it hasnt show an ability to make large holes in tough things, which is pretty much the point of at tank gun. HESH in particular has been shown in Iraq to make holes in walls large enough to drive a truck through.:)

Edited by Stuart666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×