Jump to content

Challenger II is underpowered


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The driver's hole is a major weak point, I have had a BMP-1 kill CR2s by use of the 73mm on it.

The Chally was designed to take on T-72s and other tanks of the era while it is defending. It does a good job of that, but has issues when it is taken out of that environment. Not a shock really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing wrong with the Challenger 2 in SB. here is a AAR. just use the L28

I am not talking about the flank attacks, ambushes and other tricks as they do not show anything in real comparison between two different tank models. They show only the player's experience.

If you want to compare Challenger II with any other tank properly put them all on flat terrain at approx. 7000 meters distance, Reds are guarding, Blues have to advance at top speed, engage and destroy them face-to-face. Only such test shows the actual capability of the vehicles modeled in game. You get the correct comparison of frontal armor, LRF accuracy and gun stabilization, differences in round ballistics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not talking about the flank attacks, ambushes and other tricks as they do not show anything in real comparison between two different tank models. They show only the player's experience.

If you want to compare Challenger II with any other tank properly put them all on flat terrain at approx. 7000 meters distance, Reds are guarding, Blues have to advance at top speed, engage and destroy them face-to-face. Only such test shows the actual capability of the vehicles modeled in game. You get the correct comparison of frontal armor, LRF accuracy and gun stabilization, differences in round ballistics.

Yes and no. AI can only do so much. If you battle AI vs AI you miss out on better TIS resolution and other factors. Also you must keep in mind for what the real world tank was designed for...most are not dedigned for flat ground and 10000+ LOS. So this test has its limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not talking about the flank attacks, ambushes and other tricks as they do not show anything in real comparison between two different tank models. They show only the player's experience.

If you want to compare Challenger II with any other tank properly put them all on flat terrain at approx. 7000 meters distance, Reds are guarding, Blues have to advance at top speed, engage and destroy them face-to-face. Only such test shows the actual capability of the vehicles modeled in game. You get the correct comparison of frontal armor, LRF accuracy and gun stabilization, differences in round ballistics.

Umm no, each tank has it own disadvantages and advantages. To place tank face to face and try to shoot each other at 7000 meters is just foolish and inaccurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm no, each tank has it own disadvantages and advantages. To place tank face to face and try to shoot each other at 7000 meters is just foolish and inaccurate.

Well. It shows which tank is better on flat ground in a frontal clash. Dt...he also wrote thst they are advancing...so it wont stay at 7000.but yes the result will have limited applicatons ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well. It shows which tank is better on flat ground in a frontal clash. Dt...he also wrote thst they are advancing...so it wont stay at 7000.but yes the result will have limited applicatons ;-)

But not a test to say that the challenger 2 is under powered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to compare Challenger II with any other tank properly.....

Where did this come from???

It sure is not from any test that a army have run in the past. We have a strict SOP's to test any AFV that we have in competitions to decide/evaluate any AFV including tanks.

I really think you need to step back on how one would compare/evaluate the ChallyII against outer tanks.

And comparing it against a T-90 is not a realistic comparison, as the ChallyII was designed and fielded for a different threat no matter if the T-90 is just a T-72 upgraded argument

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to compare Challenger II with any other tank properly.....

Where did this come from???

It sure is not from any test that a army have run in the past. We have a strict SOP's to test any AFV that we have in competitions to decide/evaluate any AFV including tanks.

I really think you need to step back on how one would compare/evaluate the ChallyII against outer tanks.

d comparing it against a T-90 is not a realistic comparison, as the ChallyII was designed and fielded for a different threat no matter if the T-90 is just a T-72 upgraded argument

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I have yet to see anything that corroborates your statement. I just created a scenario with six T-90s with as many different KE munitions firing at about 150 blind Challengers at ranges from 500 to 3,500 meters. Nothing what I have seen in the last 20 minutes suggests that the Challenger's frontal turret is highly vulnerable. I'll keep 'em blasting for another hour or two and see what it'll yield.

Please demonstrate the issue, be it with screenshots, HTML report files, or AAR files - anything that is suitable to illustrate the issue. Beyond this test I'm not going to waste my time on the matter until further proof is brought forward.

As far as the suspicion about too weak British APFSDS ammunition is concerned, it remains a topic of interest. There is no conspiracy to keep it artificially weak. We have recently discovered an inconsistency in our parameter estimation that is currently under investigation; if it yields anything, I will report it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Challenger is quite tough as it is modeled. I don't believe I've lost one to any impact on the front turret slope.

However, shot placement is another matter- I have lost Challenger tanks three times playing Instant Action to T-55 tanks when they managed a hit on the turret roof, and there is an excellent chance to die when a shot is placed through the driver's position. Instant Action is also a fairly artificial representation for the purposes of testing. Typically these kinds of 'lucky' shot placements don't occur under more conventional type scenarios. Instant Action puts the player within range of even the weakest enemy tank guns modeled in Steel Beasts, the player is outnumbered, skylined on a hill, where the player is relatively contained within a small area because he is surrounded by mines.

However, I do concede that the enemy gunner's skill if you like, for a lack of a better term, can bypass even the heaviest armor if they can accurately hit any of the weak points, so the armor values wouldn't matter no matter how strong they are. Computer units also seem to be pretty adept at targeting optics and sensors. In other words, this is not the fault of the armor values, but the computer's 'skill.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, that's not helpful, just plain provocative.

I have evaluated 559 events of ammunition interaction with Challenger tanks. Only a handful of them were actual turret hits. This is significant insofar as computer-controlled T-90 units will simply not open fire with their APFSDS rounds if they don't see a chance to create at least some damage. So, the sheer absence of frontal turret hits is already an indicator that the initial report may have been a wee bit exaggerated.

I'll be happy to resume the tests if there's a bit more than just the claim that something's not quite right with the damage model (the ammunition review will go on however). If for example screenshots show the location of a potentially weak spot, I can hopefully replicate the scenario with manually aimed shots.

Until then however I cannot recognize anything that justifies to expend more testing time on the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on, that's not helpful, just plain provocative.

What do you expect me to say? Cheers and gratitudes all the time? Yes, the SB is the best tank sim on the market but it is unfinished and many aspects are based on assumptions rather than on exact modelling. What T-90 rounds were you testing in reality if you depict those tanks to start firing at ~3000 meters accurately (according to LRF data). You are one of the designers who sells the product, so if customers pay money for this they would expect simulation that is at least accurate.

If you are having troubles accessing Russian tanks for modelling go to Ukraine, Kharkiv tank plant that manufactures various advanced versions of T-64 and T-80, they will show you the tanks, drive to the tank range, and you will be able to represent those vehicles accurately. Not that difficult. Moreover they would show you actual tanks damaged in combat with various munitions so that you can model the damage characteristics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you expect me to say?

Well I think you'll find he was commenting on the post immediately above his (the cartoon) which was a dig at you.

That is, he was defending you (or at least your right to raise an issue). :)

As for the rest, well as he has come here a few times to check on models for our gear I know they do a thorough job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fry-meme-trolling-or-stupid.jpg

Seriously,

The guy pointed out a few things he regarded as inaccurate, there's no need for this type of bullying. Theres a core of members on this forum who think they can offend or deride other Members if they don't agree with there point of view or raise issues.

No wonder there considerably less posts made now then there were in previous years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The guy pointed out a few things he regarded as inaccurate, there's no need for this type of bullying.

tumblr_inline_mw872iAqYQ1qm570m.jpg

A guy comes on here making unfounded criticisms of the sim. What do you expect? Unless he can prove it, it doesn't matter what he thinks. Unfortunately his claims wasted a bunch of peoples time. Time which could have been put to better use.

If someone has a valid point, then of course it will be listened to, but BS is just that and deserves to be treated as such IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is posting here? And what did you do to tacbat?

Stanny maybe had a bit limited test setup. But i guess from his point of view his claim was valid. There is no need to get personal at him. Most of his unfunded claims...are best ignored.

Getting personal shows nothing then a lack of patience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A guy comes on here making unfounded criticisms of the sim.

Unfounded criticism? And what else would you expect when top Russian tanks are being modeled as "super weapons" even without having proper access to the original army units to learn about actual capabilities?

What Russian tanks were tested before adding to the Steel Beasts line? Only the downgraded export T-72M1 version? So how can you precisely model T-80 and T-90 for example, when you don't have even the proper technical documentation?

Sorry guys, if you take $40 for every major upgrade customers expect quality, attention to details and technical accuracy.

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...