Jump to content
silent-one

Challenger 2 any good?

Recommended Posts

Well the long and the short of it, is that the Challenger 2 is comparable to the other western tanks of the same "era", M-1A1, Leo 2A5, etc. The problem is that the Challenger 2 suffers in the ammo arena. I think the 2 piece ammo limits the length/diameter ratio of the perpetrator for the L27 "Charm 3" APFSDS and I dont think HESH is a reliable killer of modern armor (all my unresearched opinions. direct all complaints here not to E Sim or anyone else). Challenger is first rate against the anticipated threat of the day, T72B, T-80, (and although not found in SB ProPE, T-90, Type 99?) so the notional battles we fight here cant really be applied to debate the design decisions made 10 to 20 years ago IRL. IMHO its as much a factor of the players skills or how they deploy the tank as it is the "numbers" at work in the model. Different anmmo types are provided and are an excellent way to balance dissimilar vehicle types.

As for the trolling well it is as predictable as a sunrise given the source. The best response is to not rise to the bait. Its sort of like the NFL. Its not the guy who throws the first punch that (usually) gets the penalty from the referee, its the guy that replies who gets caught. Often this happens here, where someone starts something on TS or in another thread and the victims in frustration, respond and draw the ire of the powers that be and cause disappointment in the behavior of everyone from guys like yourself. Don't judge the group by the conduct of one malcontent.

Mog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, speaking of ammunition, some additional data has been obtained that *might* help. Nothing specific about the CHARM3 but some specific info about rounds before the CHARM3 which might help make new, possibly more accurate estimates. Of course what comes from it all is still uncertain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said before, the thing is designed to kill Soviet tanks of its era. The newer Soviet/Russian tanks it has difficulty with. FCS is sort of a mix between the M1 and Leopard 2. It uses an automatic lead like the M1, but in the day sight it doesn't "float." Because TIS was a secondary consideration and due to its placement it floats and worse. You will have difficulty hitting stationary targets with the night sight past 2-2.5K if using HESH due to the sight's placement. Due to the floating nature of the TIS reticle it will be difficult to hit moving targets. If you can use the day sight you are better off using it. The turret is well armored, the driver's hatch however can be penetrated by even a BMP1's cannon. Add in the slow speed of the vehicle it is a defensive tank, intended to fight behind a ridge or a berm. In terms of the turret armor it is the best of its era, however newer tanks like the Leopard2A6 have equivalent thickness but with better coverage, particularly around the gun mantlet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the sight and gunnery on the C2 is a user issue. We all have been using the M1/Leo for quite a long time now, and generally comfortable with it. The C2 has been around for a short time in comparison.

For those of us who started in basic gunnery (no lead, fcs, lazer) this system is not that difficult. It will in time, and given enough practice, result in the same level of knowledge, and comfort as the above tanks. Having a floating or non floating aiming point is a non issue. It's different, as with other aiming points, it's not a good or bad thing, just something to learn and adapt. If you as a player cant use different FCS in gunnery, well it's your issue , not the AFV's. Thousands of gunners train on different systems, they do i,t and move on, I would think we can also.

So when the next batch of playable AFV's enter the sim, we will, I think hear all of the issues we are hearing now with the C2.

For me, I have always considered the C2 among the top MBT's around, mastering the gunnery is a challenge, but it can be effective as any out there, those who would disagree have produced little data to back up such statements. There all issues for sure, but they all have issues, to some degree.

I spend a lot of time on the C2 when I can to gain some practice using the FSC, as with all new FCS this needs to be done. To say after 1 year of hardly using the C2 and it's gunnery, just shows lack of interest or lack of commitment to learn new FCS. This will I think hurt you as a player in the future as ESim adds new AFV's and their DIFFERENT FCS.

Practice, get over it, move on, keep learning. And stop drinking the Hater-aid plz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Floating sights are definitely a user issue, I'm not a fan of the M1's FCS for the same reason. However there are other issues with the Challenger in SB and apparently IRL which aren't user issues. The aided lay function isn't in the sim at the moment as far as I know, and IRL the thermal sight mounted on the gun mantlet means that the sight elevates with the elevation of the main gun, which leads to the target being obscured due to the thermal sight not being able to show the target at maximum zoom when using HESH or smoke at range. This is a big issue if you are forced to use the TIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those of us who started in basic gunnery (no lead, fcs, lazer) this system is not that difficult.

Well I must admit there have been times when I've resorted to "ranging bursts" with coax to confirm the range before firing main, but that's not my preferred approach. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I started this thread Ive got to say how disappointed I am particularly with the troll behavior of dta delta. Having a flame war about my clan/tank is better than you clan/tank is off topic and total BS. The discourse the thread dives into sounds like children fighting over sandcastles.

I ask if the Challenger 2 is any good and what does it compare to and you slag it off. Slag each other off and argue scenarios which have no relevance to the modern battlefield.

Id have expected this behavior in a Call of Duty forum but I really expected more here.

IMHO there are people like this in every sim community. The great thing about SB is that they are few and far between, so there's not much of this behaviour going on.

May I explain the nature of the scenario that led to my comments? It was not - as dta delta assumed - a tactical battle scenario in which crew training was relevant. It was a training exercise set up specifically to examine the CR2/Fin combo versus the Leo 2ADK/DM53 combo. Which is why I deliberately used the word withstand, which indicates being hit, rather than avoid, which indicates not being hit.

4 Leos were in hull down positions on the far side of a ridge at 2km. Visibility was poor. The only way the CR2s could recce forward was to come up to the ridge and peer over the top using their TOGS (TI). As you know, this is not co-located with the GPS on the turret roof as with most tanks, but attached to the barrel, forcing greater exposure than would otherwise be the case.

As a result, when a CR2 tried to move up to a hull down position to engage the Leos it was fired on before the gunner could even laze his opponent. (No problem - this is what were looking for). In 50% of the cases it was a first round kill. In the other 50% the CR2 was severely disabled. I stress that these hits were on the turret not the hull. So much for Challenger invincibility.

The situation was then reversed so that the CR2s WERE able to engage the Leos without being knocked out first. This showed that the Fin round was far less effective against the Leo that the Leo's DM53 was against the CR2.

Hope you find the above of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some photos that have been unearthed lately about the L23A1 confirmed our estimates for the projectile dimensions. There's some disagreement about how to interpret some of the parameters in the Odermatt formula (and the corresponding divergence in calculation results). As a consequence we have slightly raised the L23A1 performance estimates which might result in a further upgrade of the CHARM1 and CHARM3 round. That said, they won't make a stellar performance impression even then.

Oh, BTW: Some of you complained about the sub par mobility of the Challenger in SB Pro as a proof of bias of the development team. We looked at the data and our model parameters again and indeed found an error. We're showing the uparmored CR2 at 74 metric tons combat mass but were calculating the mobility with the base vehicle at about 60 tons. So we corrected that. It won't be in the direction some of you were hoping for, however.

I would have much preferred to relay other news to the Challenger fans, that we found a serious error and that now everything is well. Unfortunately, the new evidence only confirmed our suspicions. As far as CHARM1 and -3 are concerned, much of it is still shrouded in secrecy. I admit that I am not optimistic that there's much room to revise our current figures up (so there's our bias) even if the secrecy may be lifted one day (which isn't likely for the near future).

In summary I can say the Challenger 2 appears to be adequately armed and to offer sufficient mobility for the kind of enemy that is likely to be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some photos that have been unearthed lately about the L23A1 confirmed our estimates for the projectile dimensions. There's some disagreement about how to interpret some of the parameters in the Odermatt formula (and the corresponding divergence in calculation results). As a consequence we have slightly raised the L23A1 performance estimates which might result in a further upgrade of the CHARM1 and CHARM3 round. That said, they won't make a stellar performance impression even then.

Oh, BTW: Some of you complained about the sub par mobility of the Challenger in SB Pro as a proof of bias of the development team. We looked at the data and our model parameters again and indeed found an error. We're showing the uparmored CR2 at 74 metric tons combat mass but were calculating the mobility with the base vehicle at about 60 tons. So we corrected that. It won't be in the direction some of you were hoping for, however.

I would have much preferred to relay other news to the Challenger fans, that we found a serious error and that now everything is well. Unfortunately, the new evidence only confirmed our suspicions. As far as CHARM1 and -3 are concerned, much of it is still shrouded in secrecy. I admit that I am not optimistic that there's much room to revise our current figures up (so there's our bias) even if the secrecy may be lifted one day (which isn't likely for the near future).

In summary I can say the Challenger 2 appears to be adequately armed and to offer sufficient mobility for the kind of enemy that is likely to be expected.

Can I request a review of the TIS system as well?

From what I have observed over the weekend, the TIS is closer to a 2nd gen viewer (as in th CV90 series) and at low mag the gun tube is visible in the lower 3rd of the screen (in the centre).

Soundwise the GPS makes a proper clunk when switching the GPS over to TIS, kinda like the mag change on a CV9040 (without the whir) and more "heavy"

I have to say generally it sounds very....industrial.

Just offering my feedback. :)

(if you'd like anymore Ssnake you know where I am, I can only really advise cosmetically though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ssnake.

I would love it if this finally convinced the 'Challenger fundamentalists' in UKA that we should lay the poor old heffalump to rest and get ourselves a decent tank. But as three members - including the new C.O - were down at Tidworth crawling over a real one this weekend, I fear there's little chance of that. :(

I jest, of course. In campaigns such as Red Tide we are expected to field our current national tank - so I suppose we had better get used to it. :( It seems to me that the Challenger was designed specifically as a defensive tank - ideally suited to the Cold War situation in which the FEBA was only ever going to go in one direction. It may be excellent in that role, but it isn't much fun (IMHO) in more cut and thrust SB scenarios.

Thinks: is it time to set up a new V.U called 'Tjay's Tankers' equipped with the Leo E or similar? ;)

Btw, what percentage speed loss do you anticipate from the correction to the combat weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Btw, what percentage speed loss do you anticipate from the correction to the combat weight?

Well the weight has gone up by a little over 20% (60 -> 74) so I'm guessing it will be pretty marked.

Top speed may not be impacted that much (will just take longer to get to it), but that sort of change in power/weight ratios (890/60000 = 0.0148 kW/Kg compared to 890/74000 = 0.012 kW/Kg) means it will less responsive than before.

But in any case its bound to generate comments as its a shift in the "wrong" direction. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Ssnake.

Thinks: is it time to set up a new V.U called 'Tjay's Tankers' equipped with the Leo E or similar? ;)

Btw, what percentage speed loss do you anticipate from the correction to the combat weight?

Tjay

We could always use some artistic licence and pretend the MOD has ordered

Brand new Leo-2e's or if its in the next upgrade the M1A2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well every tank has a "Character flaw"

CR 2: Slow.

Leopard 2A6: Hull ammo readliy catches fire/explodes.

M1A1: Long reload times.

T-72: Doesn't go backwards in a hurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tjay

We could always use some artistic licence and pretend the MOD has ordered

Brand new Leo-2e's or if its in the next upgrade the M1A2.

I'm all for it. You just need to convince Crusty. I won't hold my breath. :heu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tjay

We could always use some artistic licence and pretend the MOD has ordered

Brand new Leo-2e's or if its in the next upgrade the M1A2.

Heritics the pair of you :shocked:

take yourselves of to the corner of the room and burn yourselves at the stake immediately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the weight has gone up by a little over 20% (60 -> 74) so I'm guessing it will be pretty marked.

Top speed may not be impacted that much (will just take longer to get to it), but that sort of change in power/weight ratios (890/60000 = 0.0148 kW/Kg compared to 890/74000 = 0.012 kW/Kg) means it will less responsive than before.

But in any case its bound to generate comments as its a shift in the "wrong" direction. :)

Those tempted to make such a comment might consider the fact that any shift in the direction of improved accuracy can't be wrong. eSim were open-minded enough to go back and check when doubts about its automotive performance were raised, admitted an error - and corrected it. It wasn't what we expected or hoped for, but the important thing is that we now know it to be (more) accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heritics the pair of you :shocked:

take yourselves of to the corner of the room and burn yourselves at the stake immediately

See - he's only been in the job for 24 hours and already he's brutally putting down any dissent. And you thought I was bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killjoy
Heritics the pair of you :shocked:

take yourselves of to the corner of the room and burn yourselves at the stake immediately

I agree.

If you didn't use the Challenger or British Equipment, what would be the point of calling it UK armour?

It isn't that bad. It's just abit slow and sometimes the sights bugger up, but the CR2 is like the missus;

She can be a bitch sometimes but you can't help but love her. :D

Edited by Killjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im fairly new to SB and came in as a Challenger 2 fanboy. I was shocked to find that T-55's could take me out much easier than i thought and in turn were tougher than i anticipated. That said it was 100% due to my over expectations of the tank in reality/simulation and lack of ability.

Since then i have read through plenty of topics in these forums and its been an eyeopener for me in regards to the Challenger 2 and all the other tanks. Any tank gun can take out any tank, no tanks are indestructible.

Yes its a sim and they can only model the CR2 on the information available good or bad.

Does it stop me taking the CR2 out for a fight? no, because its still great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heritics the pair of you :shocked:

take yourselves of to the corner of the room and burn yourselves at the stake immediately

"BURN THE HERETIC!!!

KILL THE MUTANT!! (not really applicable here)

PURGE THE UNCLEAN!!"

I'm going to drive closer so I can hit them with my sword!!

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The C2s that I seen were factory fresh, litteraly driven out the door and along the test track beside the factory, and I would think have no ammo or anything else, certainly no up-armouring was evident on them, not even the skirts covering the road wheels.

They still gave my 6x4 truck a run for it's money and my kW/kg was about 0.026 (130kW and 5tonnes)

Still I like the C2 in SB :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the weight has gone up by a little over 20% (60 -> 74) so I'm guessing it will be pretty marked.

Top speed may not be impacted that much (will just take longer to get to it), but that sort of change in power/weight ratios (890/60000 = 0.0148 kW/Kg compared to 890/74000 = 0.012 kW/Kg) means it will less responsive than before.

But in any case its bound to generate comments as its a shift in the "wrong" direction. :)

Correct. The top speed has remained the same, it is now that it has a little slower acceleration. I compared both though and it isn't that drastic of a difference really. Slow is slow. ;) It probably takes just a few more seconds to achieve comparable speeds now.

Speaking of which, this does bring up the issue that it is worth modeling the CR1 or pre addon armored CR2 to have a slightly faster version in SB to choose from. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct. The top speed has remained the same, it is now that it has a little slower acceleration. I compared both though and it isn't that drastic of a difference really. Slow is slow. ;) It probably takes just a few more seconds to achieve comparable speeds now.

Speaking of which, this does bring up the issue that it is worth modeling the CR1 or pre addon armored CR2 to have a slightly faster version in SB to choose from. :)

Or the Challenger 2 (Export) with the MTU engine from the Leopard 2, a Loader's .50 cal and (I think) a commander's CITV (as opposed to the TC daysight peri as it is now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt there's any point in modelling a Tank only Oman uses, unless of course Oman have just ordered a full suite of SB Pro.

although don't Oman use the standard 1st gen CR2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the long and the short of it, is that the Challenger 2 is comparable to the other western tanks of the same "era", M-1A1, Leo 2A5, etc. The problem is that the Challenger 2 suffers in the ammo arena. I think the 2 piece ammo limits the length/diameter ratio of the perpetrator for the L27 "Charm 3" APFSDS and I dont think HESH is a reliable killer of modern armor (all my unresearched opinions. direct all complaints here not to E Sim or anyone else). Challenger is first rate against the anticipated threat of the day, T72B, T-80, (and although not found in SB ProPE, T-90, Type 99?) so the notional battles we fight here cant really be applied to debate the design decisions made 10 to 20 years ago IRL. IMHO its as much a factor of the players skills or how they deploy the tank as it is the "numbers" at work in the model. Different anmmo types are provided and are an excellent way to balance dissimilar vehicle types.

As for the trolling well it is as predictable as a sunrise given the source. The best response is to not rise to the bait. Its sort of like the NFL. Its not the guy who throws the first punch that (usually) gets the penalty from the referee, its the guy that replies who gets caught. Often this happens here, where someone starts something on TS or in another thread and the victims in frustration, respond and draw the ire of the powers that be and cause disappointment in the behavior of everyone from guys like yourself. Don't judge the group by the conduct of one malcontent.

Mog

From my understanding you have been a malcontent yourself for many years here. Many players who know you have spoken very poorly of you. I remember when I first started here on muliplayer. You name was one of the first topics to come up as a huge troller.

Tjay, I may have been alittle harsh about what I said to the VU and I apologize for it. But dont sit here and tell someone that a vehicle is not very good here on SB when you can make it just as good as the others vehicles from crewing it correctly.

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

×