Jump to content
silent-one

Challenger 2 any good?

Recommended Posts

They're part of the height map. The old style height maps are essentially just 8 bit grayscale images, so you can draw them with any image editor, like gimp, and then convert them to a raw file with something like XnView, and finally add the simple header (2 32 bit integers for the width and height) with a hex editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And something to change in the future update, the challenger 1 and 2 only have 1 forward facing driver periscope. The current Steel Beasts version has 3 periscopes.

No 3D driver compartment ---> Generic view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a more tactically-realistic test, I would agree with you that the CHARM is the main culprit. In my very simplified test mission, it seems the kill disparity is considerably exacerbated by the AI's preternatural ability to place every single round exactly on the target's center mass, affected only by round dispersion -- and that center mass grouping happens to encompass the CR2 driver's hatch. If that peculiar vulnerability was located in the turret, for example, it would have been irrelevant here because, IIRC, none of the hits I viewed in the AAR occurred on the turret. ALL were glacis or prow hits.

I just ran a mission. Attached are the images showing all four hits on the three CR2s (2 were killed with the first round; the third required two rounds to kill). Notice the shot placement.

Yes, that last one is the one I expect to see every time one of my CR2s is killed and I review the AAR. Despite that vulnerability the turret survives hits from advanced KE and HEAT rounds much more often than not (and that would normally kill comparable MBTs such as M1 and Leopard 2) and the Dorchester add-on armour also offers above average flank protection so, yes, it's all about maximising the advantages and minimising the disadvantages of the specific vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're part of the height map. The old style height maps are essentially just 8 bit grayscale images, so you can draw them with any image editor, like gimp, and then convert them to a raw file with something like XnView, and finally add the simple header (2 32 bit integers for the width and height) with a hex editor.

That's good to know. For example, trying to recreate the tactical vignettes published in Armor magazine for a while would be a dicey proposition if you had to find existing terrain that conformed to the terrain in the vignette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I would :-P

The key word there was sane. Traditionally a meeting engagement is kept to 1:1 or 2:1 odds, unless you are fighting spear throwing natives. :clin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a more tactically-realistic test, I would agree with you that the CHARM is the main culprit. In my very simplified test mission, it seems the kill disparity is considerably exacerbated by the AI's preternatural ability to place every single round exactly on the target's center mass, affected only by round dispersion -- and that center mass grouping happens to encompass the CR2 driver's hatch.

Well, every single gunner in real life trains to put rounds center mass every time. It is not a super human feat to do it, you just put the reticle on the center of the target and fire. ;)

So, no, no penalties should exist. The problem is simply that the Challenger's weak spot IS center of mass in front. If the driver's hatch was off to the side then it would be much harder to hit in general, even a human would have trouble hitting it because it is very easy to shoot center mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Grenny was working on him being the "3" and them being the "1". :)

Yeah, hah, I meant to say 1:3 in the first post. :c:

OK, yes, Grenny, I agree that 3:1 in a meeting engagement is a good situation. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, hah, I meant to say 1:3 in the first post. :c:

OK, yes, Grenny, I agree that 3:1 in a meeting engagement is a good situation. ;)

Yeah, that's the point.

The problem in a meeting engagement is to KNOW who actually is "3" and who is "1".

:-D

I think General E. Lee could tell stories about that :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions:

1) Does the Challenger 1 and 2 have any composite armor modules inside the lower glacis?

2) Does the 120 mm rifled gun (L55) really outrange a 120 mm smoothbore gun (L55,52,44) ?

3) Is the L27A1 "CHARM 3" penetrator really not much longer than 50 cm ?

4) Does the Leopard 2 still only use "simple perforated spaced steel armour" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few questions:

1) Does the Challenger 1 and 2 have any composite armor modules inside the lower glacis?

2) Does the 120 mm rifled gun (L55) really outrange a 120 mm smoothbore gun (L55,52,44) ?

3) Is the L27A1 "CHARM 3" penetrator really not much longer than 50 cm ?

4) Does the Leopard 2 still only use "simple perforated spaced steel armour" ?

HESH round on the right 511mm.

JTE14Lc.jpg

L26 CHARM1 (yellow and black) is a little bit longer, 525mm. which means a penetrator a bit shorter than 500mm.

the blue and white round is the L29A1 C3TR training round variant of CHARM3. AFAIK, CHARM3 is the L27.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4) Does the Leopard 2 still only use "simple perforated spaced steel armour" ?

Where did you hear that?

The armour of the Leo2 consists of XXXX-*~ mm of #### between 2 layers of +++++ and an wedged layer of ~~~~~

8-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did you hear that?

The armour of the Leo2 consists of XXXX-*~ mm of #### between 2 layers of +++++ and an wedged layer of ~~~~~

8-)

Lol, nice one ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of dragging up another discussion about the performance of the charm 3 round and it's depiction in SB I do have some observations/ questions. Firstly I would like to point out I do understand SB implementing of charm 3 and all rounds for that matter are based on as much credible information as is available and best guess, that being said...here I go.

1. Below is extract from SB ammunition data wiki

120mm L30: L27 CHARM3 3500 510 1675 1999

120mm L30: L28 3500 510 1670 2000s

So my first question is why does the l27 and l28 have the same penetrative value? One is a tungsten training round and the other is the core round designed for CR2 and most research I have read suggests du had around 10% greater armour piercing capability. These are credible sources as I have just used them for an essay submission for my MSC but I don't have them to hand right now, will dig them out if this statement is viewed as nonsense :)

2. Another extract from the ammunition table, this time for a 1980's 105mm L7 round

105mm L7: CMC105 3500 520 1501 1980s

While I couldn't find much info about this specific round it does seem curious a 105mm round developed in the 1980's for a tank gun 2 generations behind the L30 had the same penetrative value yet at a lower velocity?

3. Again.....This time of the German dm33 round which as a best guess appears to be around the same size pentrator size ad charm 3....I could be wrong though.

120mm RM: DM33 (L44) 3500 600 1650 1987

120mm RM: DM33 (L55) 3500 660 1710 1987

But again it seems curious a tungsten based round fired from a lower caliber weapon (44 calibre versus 55 of the L30)system outperforms charm 3 by such a margin, especially when there is 20 years between the rounds. I know rifling is said to loose an element of pressure due to gases escaping around the round in the barrel but some experts (i know it is a cop out but i would rather not say who and where i spoke to them on a public forum) suggest this would only equate to 1% loss in velocity.

Yet the dm53 round which due to its length would potentially weigh more and surface area is greater so drag coefficient would be higher. Is the data in SB Pro therefore assuming pressures in the gun barrel and propellant technology of charm 3 is far lower than the dm53 by such a margin?

Please do not think this is a flame against eSim or questioning your competency. ...far from it!! I know data on these sorts of things are hard to get solid information on and not biased opinion, but with the data that is present in the ammunition data tables and the high level facts such as du versus wa and effects of higher calibre weapon systems on these rounds etc it just appears to me there is some "inconsistency". I say it in speech marks as while it may appear to be inconsistency to me, it could very well be reasons for that.

I know it is easy to get hung up on these headline figures when in reality it is not as clear cut as velocity and rhae performance = probability of kill versus vehicle x but it's the information we have to hand right now :)

Regards

Whisky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAICR, the L27 is dU, and the L28 is tungsten, basically they figured out how to do away with the dU and use tungsten for the same penetration power. I could be remembering it wrong though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Jane's Ammunition Handbook 2009 (pages 418/419) "the L28 ... is basically the L27A1 round with the dU penetrator replaced by a W-Ni-Fe component". The L28A2 was intended as an export round for Oman. Both L27 and L28 are using the same propellant and are "baslistically matched".

The terminal ballistic performance will still be different however as the Odermatt equation takes the different materials into account. Even if the initial performance is identical, the dU round might still lose less comparable energy when passing through armor plates as a tungsten round would (of course there isn't a world of a difference, but the difference is there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHA can be a superior material, it does rather better than DU at higher impact velocities, and is only limited by it's relatively high cost (DU is essentially 'free' being a waste product from nuclear power enrichment processes, while W is scarcer more universally useful (excellent machine tool material for cutting hard materials).

DU has some advantages at marginal penetration cases as it is highly pyrophoric, but this doesn't change that at ordnance velocity it needs *more* energy for a given penetration than a well designed 'modern' WHA material (the case was different before monoblock penetrators became feasible).

At lower velocities (around 1580m/s) 'similar' geometry WHA and DU rods will have the same performance, so the 'better' DU probably comes from the era of the 105mm gun, where V0 was around 1450-1510 m/s. With the higher velocity 120mm gun, the material factor is changed ~ with the range of velocities from 1555-1680 (and the only two sub 1650m/s rounds being the DU M829A1 (1575) and M829A3 (1555), where the lower velocity was used to obtain *much* larger rods than previously possible for the material strength and gun performance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and is only limited by it's relatively high cost (DU is essentially 'free' being a waste product from nuclear power enrichment processes, while W is scarcer more universally useful (excellent machine tool material for cutting hard materials).

At the raw material costs, yes this is true, however various reports on the DTIC website suggest that through life cost comparison between WA and DU actually make them virtually the same due to the "clean up" costs, special handling and machining of the rounds, disposal of DU but also the high scrap value of WA. After writing a report on the mater i am also less convinced about the whole "environmental" and political argument against DU. Yes it is radioactive but to such a low level it can be handled safely, but also research has been published whereby if Tungsten is absorbed into soft tissue (tested on rats) then it leads to cancerous growths as problematic as potential DU ingestion. This coupled with the fact DU can be recovered on a battlefield or training area by the use of radiation detection devices, a luxury Tungsten does not offer, so arguably WA actually leads to "dirtier" battlefields....

i digress, but it is interesting, that it appears its just a niave view that "Its radioactive!!!..... we are all going to sprout 3 heads and die slowly" that is forcing DU out.

Whisky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are all heavy metals, and heavy metals are never good news in anyone's body tissue. Whether it's lead, cadmium, tungsten, bismuth, uranium, mercury, ... they're best avoided in aerosolic form, or in watery solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it certainly poisons heliobacter pylori quicker than it does ailing humans. As a regular dietary ingredient I'd still not recommend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three cheers for Chally II !

In last night's TGIF, my Challenger platoon (controlled by Assassin7 and myself) killed 25 x T-72M/M1, 4 x T-62, 2 x PT-76, 1 x BRDM-2 AT and 1 x BRDM2, and probably damaged another half dozen or so vehicles, at the cost of all 4 Challengers. Many of those kills were at 3,000+ meters, and we would have killed many more but quickly expended all sabot and had to engage a moving enemy with HESH. Our platoon was only destroyed because our BP was flanked left and right. Had we pulled back to a less exposed BP (and maybe even reloaded), we could have continued the mayhem quite a bit longer.

I can't lay claim to good gunnery, as most of my vehicles' kills were by the AI gunner.

Still, a testament to the potency of the Challenger 2 in a good defensive position with long fields of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...