Jump to content

Challenger II is underpowered


Recommended Posts

Challenger II is underpowered in 3.011 version, I think there is something wrong with ammunition ballistics and penetration. With L27 sabot rounds it barely wins with huge losses and damages a 4 X 4 face to face battle against T-90S or even looses in a 3500 m range duel. Basically only one tank survives out of a 4 vehicle platoon the battle against the equal platoon of T-90S.

Meanwhile M1A2 Abrams SEP just wipes all T-90S squadron off with M829A3 sabot rounds at 4100 meter distance in the same terrain and conditions.

I mean something is wrong either with Challenger II cannon modelling (laser range finder is quite difficult to operate at 3500+ meter distances both in first and last return modes) or with L27 ammunition ballistics and penetration, I don't think that this tank (that has Chobham armor) should be so weak compared to T-90S. 3 Challenger II out of a four tank platoon die almost immediately at 3500 meter face to face encounter with T-90s.

Please pay attention at Challenger II model in the next update. It should not be that weak against T-90S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Without making a to long post the answer is that the CR2 are as best possible modelled with the information available to Esimgames. This discussion is kind of a dead horse as it as been done before, search for Challenger threads and there is plenty of discussions both regarding its armour and its L27...

So... if you have confirmable sources with clear proofs that CR2 is undermodelled I belive Esimgames would love to get hold of those ;)

One to start off with:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=20672&highlight=Challenger

/KT

Link to post
Share on other sites

The frontal armor is just unrealistically weak, taking into account it is Chobham. 3 out of 4 tanks die almost immediately in face to face encounter with four T-90S, in the same conditions, terrain, visibility etc. LRF has difficulties in reading the correct distance both for player controlled vehicle and for AI tanks, while T-90S is insanely accurate at 3500 meters.

T-90S is just a modified T-72 with extensive upgrades, but it no way can be so powerful against Challenger II.

So the problems are the following: frontal armor is weak, LRF needs tweaking for better distance acquisition at longer ranges (like it is implemented in M1A2), something is wrong with L27 sabot rounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okey lets flip the coin. What are your PROOFS that this is all wrong?

T-90S is nothing more than modified T-72 with upgraded reactive armor, some electronic warfare systems like "Arena" and Challenger II together with old M1A2 has shown superiority over T-72 platform in Operation Desert Storm ground offensive. Even the 125 mm sabot rounds depicted in SB Pro PE are of old 1994 year version.

So why this tank should be such a "super-weapon" that kills 3 out of 4 Challengers II at 3500 meters almost instantly while looses completely to M1A2 Abrams SEP in the same conditions (I have made two scenarios 4 x 4 frontal engagements M1A2 Abrams SEP Vs T-90S and both times all T-90S were blown from 4000 meters). I mean something is wrong that Challenger II is so inferior to M1A2 Abrams SEP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at this armor scheme for Challenger II in SB:

600px-Challenger2protection.jpg

How T-90S can penetrate the turret at 3500 meters with BM19 sabot while the penetration of this round is just 650 mm at 2000 meters at 0 degrees impact?

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOW you are getting somewhere with your case. Now provide screenshots of where the impacts have been on your CR2 and in what angle. It might just as well be a issue with damage model on the CR2 in SB for example.

Just dont bitch and whine, show proof and examples and you get further with your point of view.

/KT

Link to post
Share on other sites
So why this tank should be such a "super-weapon" that kills 3 out of 4 Challengers II at 3500 meters almost instantly while looses completely to M1A2 Abrams SEP in the same conditions (I have made two scenarios 4 x 4 frontal engagements M1A2 Abrams SEP Vs T-90S and both times all T-90S were blown from 4000 meters). I mean something is wrong that Challenger II is so inferior to M1A2 Abrams SEP.

Compare the ammo and armour values of all your tanks in your example, and you'll see why. Do the math.

No, something is quite right when the C2 is inferior to the M1A2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NOW you are getting somewhere with your case. Now provide screenshots of where the impacts have been on your CR2 and in what angle. It might just as well be a issue with damage model on the CR2 in SB for example.

Just dont bitch and whine, show proof and examples and you get further with your point of view.

/KT

Be mild with him KT. He has not understood the concept of argumentation yet. There is still hope though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have a look at this armor scheme for Challenger II in SB:

600px-Challenger2protection.jpg

How T-90S can penetrate the turret at 3500 meters with BM19 sabot while the penetration of this round is just 650 mm at 2000 meters at 0 degrees impact?

I have spoken to two RW. CR-2 crew.

Who would agree with your statements

But I wouldn't bother continuing on this forum, the sharks are circling around you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have spoken to two RW. CR-2 crew.

Who would agree with your statements

But I wouldn't bother continuing on this forum, the sharks are circling around you.

Or crew just belives propaganda what they hear in training etc.. no army says their crews that tank is not good as enemys :clin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just dont bitch and whine, show proof and examples and you get further with your point of view.

The one who is bitching and whining is obviously you at this point. As concerning me I was trying to take developer's attention that it is not necessary to make an "uber-waffe" out of Russian tanks simulating that they can penetrate the frontal section of the Challenger II turret from 3500 meter range (killing crew inside) with BM19 sabot because this is unrealistic, this won't happen in real combat due to the specifications of the round and the turret armoring of the Challenger II.

The only way they can inflict damage at this range is launching tank guided missile through the barrel of the main gun, for example 9M112 "Kobra".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem i have with the Challenger 2 is the front hull driver position. Before the latest beta patch The AI gunner was quite good and was able to hit center mass quite often , often resulting in a one-shot even with mediocre ammo. As far as i know depending on the difficulty setting , this AI gunner behavior adjusts accordingly.

I will test the CR2 turret armor against modern day Russian rounds and see what i can find out. I actually never considered the turret the weak spot on the Challenger 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Challenger II is underpowered in 3.011 version, I think there is something wrong with ammunition ballistics and penetration. With L27 sabot rounds it barely wins with huge losses and damages a 4 X 4 face to face battle against T-90S or even looses in a 3500 m range duel. Basically only one tank survives out of a 4 vehicle platoon the battle against the equal platoon of T-90S.

Meanwhile M1A2 Abrams SEP just wipes all T-90S squadron off with M829A3 sabot rounds at 4100 meter distance in the same terrain and conditions.

I mean something is wrong either with Challenger II cannon modelling (laser range finder is quite difficult to operate at 3500+ meter distances both in first and last return modes) or with L27 ammunition ballistics and penetration, I don't think that this tank (that has Chobham armor) should be so weak compared to T-90S. 3 Challenger II out of a four tank platoon die almost immediately at 3500 meter face to face encounter with T-90s.

Please pay attention at Challenger II model in the next update. It should not be that weak against T-90S.

do you have AAR for these tests?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Challenger II is underpowered in 3.011 version, I think there is something wrong with ammunition ballistics and penetration. With L27 sabot rounds it barely wins with huge losses and damages a 4 X 4 face to face battle against T-90S or even looses in a 3500 m range duel. Basically only one tank survives out of a 4 vehicle platoon the battle against the equal platoon of T-90S.

Meanwhile M1A2 Abrams SEP just wipes all T-90S squadron off with M829A3 sabot rounds at 4100 meter distance in the same terrain and conditions.

I mean something is wrong either with Challenger II cannon modelling (laser range finder is quite difficult to operate at 3500+ meter distances both in first and last return modes) or with L27 ammunition ballistics and penetration, I don't think that this tank (that has Chobham armor) should be so weak compared to T-90S. 3 Challenger II out of a four tank platoon die almost immediately at 3500 meter face to face encounter with T-90s.

Please pay attention at Challenger II model in the next update. It should not be that weak against T-90S.

You might want to have a look at this thread starting with post #113, and especially post #118.

Link to post
Share on other sites
do you have AAR for these tests?

I will do the third face to face test and post AAR here. First time Challenger II lost completely without any damage to T-90S platoon, second time it barely won - the last remaining tank got a fuel leak and was firing in a standing position until got all T-90S destroyed.

I am creating classic face to face battles when Reds take guarding position and Blues have to advance towards them and destroy. All tanks are being loaded only with sabot rounds in maximum quantity.

Last night I was doing a second test for the M1A2 Abrams SEP - their platoon just wiped T-90S platoon off, opened fire from 4100 meters with M829A3, two T-90S had their turrets blown away almost immediately, second two got their tracks broken, guns damaged and finished slightly afterwards. Only one blue tank was damaged - LRF, GPS etc.

So basically what I am trying to say is that at least in SB the Challenger II is helluva weaker than M1A2 Abrams SEP, either it is underpowered or top Russian tanks are overpowered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have spoken to two RW. CR-2 crew.

Who would agree with your statements

But I wouldn't bother continuing on this forum, the sharks are circling around you.

I would agree too. And i've yet to see a BM19 kill a cr2 at 3500 by hitting the turret front in SB. Has anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a test with me firing 3BM-42M rounds with a T-72m1 from a distance of 3500 m at 3 challenger 2s. Managed to hit the Cr2s turret turned to its 1-2 o'clock. It hit the edge of the turret front and turret side. The round failed to do any damage. Other rounds also hit the upper hull and failed to do any damage too!

PS: The KE round is not supposed to be usable from the T72 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been testing a modified version of "A Village Called Netreba" with British forces in the north and have found the 'Chally quite capable versus the T-72B, and more than able to kill T-90s at range once you've turned their flank. The key seems to be to get the old bird into a good hull down position if you intend to slug it out, as nearly all of my losses result from either hits to the driver's hole or flank hits to the hull and turret ring. Also you should try to limit your maximum engagement range to less than 2500m; after all, even the Royal Armoured Corps only claims the L27s max effective range to be 2000m.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting screenshots from the AAR/post-battle report of the individual penetrations would be the best way to prove things here I think, OP.

If a round is hitting an area and penetrating an area that it legitimately shouldnt be able to penetrate, then things can be discussed a bit more. If they're hitting the drivers port because of AI shenanigans, then its a bit tricky and not a fault of the CR2 itself :P

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...