Challenger 2 Speeds, Armour and penetration.

[Marko]

To bad you didn't realise this befoe starting this thread.

Maybe you need to accept the possible fact that the "Chally" is a sad tank.

And what Evidence have you that the Challenger is a sad tank. It has a good combat record.

Also the Russian commentary in the video i posted in my last post stated it compares equally With the Leopard 2 And M1.

[Gibsonm]

And what Evidence have you that the Challenger is a sad tank.

For what its worth he didn’t say it was.

He said its a “possible fact“ that is was.

Until the UK MoD releases the data to eSim their “best guess” is probably better than most others.

If you think its a later day “Maus” / “JagdTiger” and park it “track up” and “flank on” on top of the biggest feature around like some impregnable pill box, you’ll be disappointed.

Doing that will no doubt just result in complaints that it didn’t survive a top attack Javelin strike or JDAM.

If you use the same principles as you should with any other AFV , you’ll be fine.

[Marko]

For what its worth he didn’t say it was.

He said its a “possible fact“ that is was.

Until the UK MoD releases the data to eSim their “best guess” is probably better than most others.

If you think its a later day “Maus” and park it “track up” and “flank on” on top of the biggest feature around like some impregnable pill box, you’ll be disappointed.

Doing that will no doubt just result in complaints that it didn’t survive a top attack Javelin strike or JDAM.

If you use the same principles as you should with any other AFV , you’ll be fine.

Obviously there is no such thing as a impenetrable tank.the point i am trying to make is

Some of the members are hinting it is inferior compared to some other western tanks.

which in my opinion is not the case.

[dejawolf]

Obviously there is no such thing as a impenetrable tank.the point i am trying to make is

Some of the members are hinting it is inferior compared to some other western tanks.

which in my opinion is not the case.

the challenger 2 is the best protected tank in SB.

[Volcano]

Obviously there is no such thing as a impenetrable tank.the point i am trying to make is

Some of the members are hinting it is inferior compared to some other western tanks.

which in my opinion is not the case.

The great thing about opinions is that everyone has one.

Personally, I don't mind the Challenger 2 tank myself; I think it is a pretty good tank in SB against Russian vehicles and I like to use it every now and then. Unfortunately it isn't quite equal to other western tanks to the degree that it can face off against them 1:1, and I suppose that gets people's underwear in a bunch when they expect to be able to face off in a death match with the other of its western heavy weights. Its only real failing is with the ammo quality really, and as has been said until our virtual faces are literally blue: a great deal of research has gone into it and the rest of the tank, and the data is based on as accurate of sources as all the other vehicles in SB thus far.

All that can be seen in this thread is "I think..." and "this video says...", "this defense analyst assumes..." and "I always believed that..." Wonderful! Now all we need are some cold hard factual data. As far as I am concerned, the only aspect about the Challenger 2 that is really open to debate is the limited power of its KE ammunition power, but since the current levels are based on the best known unclassified information available, we will just have to wait until some better data comes along (cross your fingers and toes). As for all the other aspects of the tank, the design philosophies speak for itself, and it is a cold splash of water in the face apparently. This is the great thing about SB: all the flaws and strengths of a vehicle become apparent automatically.

At this point though, it sounds like the best thing we could of ever have done is not put the Challenger 2 into SB, since everyone seems to have their own fictitious expectations of it.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Volcano
clarification

[Grenny]

Agreed on that, Volcano!

The Chally model is well protected and has the only(in SB) FCS that gives you an actual firing-solution above 4000m!

Used mobile(harder to hit the "sweet spot") or hull down(sweet spot covered) the CR2 is allmost impossible to crack.

For the ammo, true if you compare it with the newest Rheinmetal 120 or 105 ammo, it seem weaker. But then again it is from 1999 (DM-53 is from 2003/4...edit: was wrong here, DM63 is from the 2003, DM-53 was developed together with the L-55 cannon around 1997/98) and has seperated rounds/charge=>the round has only about 50-60% of the length of the most recent APFSDS. And for the "pointy sticks" size matters!

The model has room for improvement but my guess is that this could be harder for esim.

On the Leo and M1 they have staff that know the maschines inside out 'cos they "lived on them" for a time.

Last point. Those of us who spent time in uniform will know, that one part of the training includes "building confidence in your equipment". They are not going to tell you:" You'll face the enemy in the 4th best tank of the world." The idea is to make you confident you are riding the most badass deathmaschine on the planet.

Take all of that with a pinch of salt and enjoy SB for what it is...and remeber: If SB had ALL the real information/Data in it...there would probably be no "PE" version

Edited January 9, 2012 by Grenny

[Marko]

The great thing about opinions is that everyone has one

I Agree with you.

I have started a new thread called the last of the heavies.

As its{ my opinion} that the British have decided to invest in lighter vehicles.

With better mobility and easier to deploy. cheaper to maintain and so on. That's the reason They haven't bothered Developing new and better Ammo for the challenger.

[DarkAngel]

I think the reason a better round hasn't been developed is even simpler than that. There is a truism which says "Necessity is the mother of invention" I think the opposite is also true. In military history I think the reverse truism exists "Lack of need is the mother of complacency". Since the the event of Glasnost in the USSR I just don't think that urgent "Need" exists anymore. Sure there are still military actions but the existing technology is perfectly adequate for dealing with T-55's, T-62's and export T-72's. Combine that with the downturn in world economies which has left a lack of money to spend on military research, especially when there is no immediate threat. I can see many comparisons to the western world before the threat of WW2 became obvious. In the UK, US and France tank development stagnated between WW1 and WW2. But when the threat became clear there was a sudden rush to try and catch up with the technology.

[Ssnake]

Just think it's rather sad to see what SB has made the Chally

Pray, tell - what specifically is your beef with our model?

It's the toughest nut to crack. The automotive performance is in line with what's publicly available. Yes, we know that the fire control system needs a few things improved (but we know which of these are, and a future update will add them).

The only thing I can imagine is that you aren't happy with the firepower es estimated by us. This has been subject to intensive debate for about a year or so. All I can say is that I will be happy to review our estimates if credible sources with verifiable facts are presented to us. Just pointing to some more or less obscure website with some performance claims doesn't cut it. We need a lot more. I will then confront our consultants with it, and see what they have to say and whether the new light justifies increasing the performance estimate.

It isn't exactly fun to defend our estimates, you know. I don't get a kick out of painting the Challenger in a bad light. It would be much easier to simply up the performance values for the CHARM3 to, say, 720mm RHA equivalent. I know the figures that float on the internet, I know that they sound plausible. It's just that the verifiable facts that we have point in a different direction. If in doubt, I will go with the facts, not the rumors, even if that means that some people aren't happy with it.

I freely admit that there's still the possibility that we're flat out wrong. But I believe that our CHARM3 estimate is one of the most reliable estimates of all the rounds that we have in SB Pro.

[IrishHussar]

The great thing about opinions is that everyone has one.

That makes opinions the same as arseholes, LOL

IMHO the CR 2 that is in SB is 1000,000% better than any other model of that particular tank in any other sim. The reason being is that it is wrapped in the whole of the rest of this simulation.

As far as the faults reported in ammo, speed etc these are minor and I'm sure as soon as reliable data is received they can be corrected.

The CR 2 was developed as a defensive tank which, in the European theatre, would've been deployed in pre-prepared positions, therefore it does have problems with side armour and also the glacier plate forward of the driver. Hence a CR2 in defence is a very capable killing machine. On the otherhand when caught out in the open it has its weaknesses, this has been somewhat reduced by up armouring to various levels.

Having carried out batch testing on Hesh rounds which entailed firing 50 rounds at 1500 meters I can confirm that it is very accurate indeed. Apart from the 2 wrong lays reported by my gunner all rounds went through the screen in a grouping of less than 1 meter.

Irish

[Guest Killjoy]

I just feel like it could be abit faster.

I mean, the armour and punch isnt the main thing for me.

What i'm saying is it could be abit more mobile. There have been a few engagements where I felt I would be better getting out and pushing.

If you'd give the Chally a small speed boost, i'd have no problems

Maybe you need to accept the possible fact that the "Chally" is a sad tank.

Sadam's Republican Guard would beg to differ.

[Froggy]

Tanker was an Abrams gunner.

To be honest, I dont think that any of us can pass judgement on the Chally, whether you're military or not, because none of us have crewed it. (as far as I know)

Just think it's rather sad to see what SB has made the Chally

Ok, My Chally 2 experience is limited for the crew simulator. But as is it a combat simulator, it must be a little less accurate than actual tank, for not to give the crew overconfidence.

Ammunition...

So it will generally take us 2 to 3 fin to destroy a T62 over 3000m and was useless on T80 at the same range (have to close to 1500m to achieve a T80 kill). We had a high percentage of hit, but for a few kills.

Hit on the move from a moving tank was poor, but we knew it before we started, as our instructors told us not to engage from a moving tank, but to stop before engaging moving target.

Speed...

well. I had never seen a so poor mobility. We were moving a top speed of 60km/h on road after a loooong travel on flat road. Never we moved over 30km/h in crosscountry (mostly 20km/h). So when we wanted to use them the same way we used to do with Leclerc, we failed. My CO was constantly asking me to speed up when flanking ennemy, but my driver was doing her best (she was a girl) but could not reach the 50km/h we used to do with our real tank.

Protection...

Was great as long as ennemy was not firing in the hull... because we had not the uparmoured hull package...

Edited January 9, 2012 by Froggy

[tanker6742@hotmail.com]

And what experience does someone in West Virginia have, just wondering? If i had to guess i would say that 12 Alpha is on the beta team so he may have been part of discussions and testing of the C2 during the beta test. I believe hes in the Canadian Army and has worked with Challenger 2s so it sounds like he may be familiar to what is reality.

Im sure none of that compares to crewing Chally2s in the West Virginia national guard or watching top ten tanks on youtube.

I may be from West Virginia but I served on active duty with 13 months in Iraq as a tank gunner. I have explained that we were told of the Challys capabilities so if we were near them we knew what to expect. I may be wrong but all Im saying is that I believe that the tank could take on and defeat T-80s maybe not M1s or leos. I dont mean to sound rude or ungrateful for the research that has been done but from what i have been taught the tank is better than shown. And by the way I will bet the West Virginia National Guard has spent more time in combat than most people on this forum. Have a nice day.

[tanker6742@hotmail.com]

I stand corrected I just watched a video of a chally tank commander explaining that there sabot round was only effictive out to 2k but hesh was out to 8k.

So according to this I am wrong. But the video did show alot of the inside of the tank. Nice video

[Ssnake]

Is it publicly available?

[Alicatt]

Ok, My Chally 2 experience is limited for the crew simulator. But as is it a combat simulator, it must be a little less accurate than actual tank, for not to give the crew overconfidence.

Speed...

well. I had never seen a so poor mobility. We were moving a top speed of 60km on road after a loooong travel on flat road. Never we moved over 30km in crosscountry (mostly 20km/h). So when we want to use them the same way we used to do with Leclerc, we failed. My CO was constantly asking me to speed up when flanking ennemy, but my driver was doing her best (she was a girl) but could not reach the 50km/h we used to do with our real tank.

That is just it I'm surprised at that, just as much as I was surprised at how fast they moved, but the tanks I saw were "factory fresh" literally! and I had to put up with them thundering past me all day. I do not know what the configuration of them was so they might have been just empty shells for all I know.

I've just had a look on Google earth and used that to measure the track where I was, it was for 800meters that I was mixed in with the tanks, there was a gap and I was told to "go for it"

[SeanPatrick]

I may be from West Virginia

:thumbup:

[Volcano]

I may be from West Virginia but I served on active duty with 13 months in Iraq as a tank gunner. I have explained that we were told of the Challys capabilities so if we were near them we knew what to expect. I may be wrong but all Im saying is that I believe that the tank could take on and defeat T-80s maybe not M1s or leos. I dont mean to sound rude or ungrateful for the research that has been done but from what i have been taught the tank is better than shown. And by the way I will bet the West Virginia National Guard has spent more time in combat than most people on this forum. Have a nice day.

The point is, when someone says something on the forum we don't need to question anyone's credentials. 12Alpha made a post and it seemed to others as if you were verifying whether or not he had the certification to actually comment in this thread. We don't need to turn each discussion into a pissing contest of experience.

Anyway, as far as the mobility is concerned

I just feel like it could be abit faster.

I mean, the armour and punch isnt the main thing for me.

What i'm saying is it could be abit more mobile. There have been a few engagements where I felt I would be better getting out and pushing.

If you'd give the Chally a small speed boost, i'd have no problems :smile:

We can't. The thing about the mobility is a no brainer. Literally. It is by far the simplest of all factors involved in making the vehicle in SB. The values are well known and documented, all we have to do is plug in those values from Jane's and voila, you have the mobility, plain and simple. Nothing about the Challenger 2's weight, horsepower and top speed is classified really. Fortunately we don't make a business out of boosting values to put a vehicle in a better light, because where would it end? Sure we have been known to make mistakes (the M60A3 comes to mind which we fixed), but because of this thread I can tell you the values were checked twice since and are correct.

Quote:

Maybe you need to accept the possible fact that the "Chally" is a sad tank.

Sadam's Republican Guard would beg to differ. :wink:

Hah, well, if that is your yard stick: have you tried creating a desert scenario with T-72M1 and giving them something like BM-15 KE ammunition versus the Challenger 2? I am sure you will find that in this situation in SB, you are exactly right -- it is not a sad tank. Put the Challenger 2 against the Leopard 2E with DM53L55 and yes, it might be a sad tank, unless you can manage to get on the flanks and win with superior tactics -- the great equalizer. It is all there for everyone to make their own observations.

[Tacbat]

Sadam's Republican Guard would beg to differ.

Depends on what you're comparing it to.

[Marko]

I just feel like it could be abit faster.

I mean, the armour and punch isnt the main thing for me.

What i'm saying is it could be abit more mobile. There have been a few engagements where I felt I would be better getting out and pushing.

If you'd give the Chally a small speed boost, i'd have no problems

Sadam's Republican Guard would beg to differ.

If only the MOD.had purchased the C2e version with its 1500 BHP engine.Advanced electronics.and fitted the L/55 main gun.

[RogueSnake79]

If this thread has done anything at all, it helps to once again show that eSim shows no bias toward any particular vehicle, or weapons system. If someone provides better data, we will use it, bottom line.

If you want to use the Challanger head to head vs M1's or Leo's, you are going to just have to try different combinations of ammo, and numbers of vehicles per side. The associated PC's also can play huge into the balance of a sce.

I think if you give it some time, and try different combos, you will find a happy balance. The Challenger does have some pretty good strong points in SB, it is the best protected, and IMO has the most accurate gun in the sim. Just recently in a multiplayer game, I killed 3 T-72m1's at 5000 meters with 5 shots. Try that with any other tank in the sim! In another sce I shot a Challanger so many times, without killing it, that I just gave up.

Any tank that can claim those strengths is not a bad tank.

[Tacbat]

Just recently in a multiplayer game, I killed 3 T-72m1's at 5000 meters with 5 shots.

Sounds like the dispersion model is broke.

[Grenny]

Sounds like the dispersion model is broke.

We had that topic before...didn't we?

[Volcano]

Yes, he is being sarcastic.

[Guest Killjoy]

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/fighting-vehicles/1475.aspx#

360 degree view of interior of CR2.

And if that's not good enough, here's a higher def version:

http://www.armchair-travel.com/military/index.htm

Second link down, 400k file.

Can we have an interior now please?