Jump to content

Challenger II is underpowered


Recommended Posts

Don't worry Stanny, we will be sure to travel to Ukraine in the heart of a warzone, to the Kharkiv Oblast, an area occupied by RSA forces, and do additional research on tanks that are probably some of the most well known vehicles in the world, despite the fact that we have contacts in Russia and the Baltic States that share information with us about them.

But seriously, Ssnake has already mentioned that the ammunition has been under re-evaluation for some time, so why not just let it go and see what happens, especially since you have no specific complaints, nor offer up any concrete evidence to your criticism?

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Is this thread even going anywhere?

Lets see,

Someone made claims (Stanny) without backing them up. Others took the bait and got personal. Why the hell? When it is so easy to take the wrong claim apart like ssnake did.

If we can get back to facts part (real life and game mechaniks) this thread might still go somewhere

Link to post
Share on other sites
since you have no specific complaints

My complaints are pretty specific - Challenger II is one of my favorite tanks ever (rifled gun, Chobham armor and all other sweet things) and I would like to see it in simulation as realistic as possible without any nerf.

nor offer up any concrete evidence to your criticism?

Put 4 Challenger II against 4 T-90S on flat terrain at 3500 meters and see how many tanks will remain undamaged in CR2 platoon.

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?

I just launched a scenario to test this myself but I cant find BM19 on the T-90S? are you refering to some other round?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The center third of the CR2's armor is weak relative to the rest of the armor. The driver's compartment is especially so, the area around the gun mantlet is also weak.

2. The AI will aim for center mass. Center mass on the CR2 when utterly exposed ranges from 160mm-713mm of armor protection.

3. 3BM42 will reliably penetrate the weaker points of that.

Lesson: Don't expose the weak points of your tank. :)

Keep in mind that in terms of quality, the list from best to worst (that we have available in the sim) is Leopard 2, M1, CR2. The Chally is a distant third, but when dealing with contemporaneous Eastern tanks it either does well, or is akin to the hand of God. But you have to use it as it is intended, which means that the hull is behind a ridge or some other earthly protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am getting fairly same results as DUKE gets.

Stationary CR2 against stationary T-90S with BM42 rounds at 3500

8 KO CR2 for 23 KO T-90

0-4

1-4

2-4

2-3

2-4

1-4

So clear advantage for CR2 when static. most KO on CR2 was driver glacis or the "underbelly".

CR2 on fast speed assault order against stationary T-90S begining at 3500

20 KO CR2 for 14 KO T-90

4-1

3-4

4-2

4-2

1-4

4-1

So when the CR2 are advancing at best speed it looses its upper hand against stationary targets. But I don't see any issues there, its old truth that you aim better when not moving yourself.

/KT

Link to post
Share on other sites
My complaints are pretty specific - Challenger II is one of my favorite tanks ever (rifled gun, Chobham armor and all other sweet things) and I would like to see it in simulation as realistic as possible without any nerf.

Put 4 Challenger II against 4 T-90S on flat terrain at 3500 meters and see how many tanks will remain undamaged in CR2 platoon.

Ugh. You obviously need a lesson in what concrete evidence means, and are clearly exaggerating the issue. I also noticed you specifically did not quote or respond to my text that Ssnake said the ammo was being investigated also, which shows your intent.

I think it is best if everyone just stops feeding the trolling. If nothing else it is a waste of time... :heu:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is best if everyone just stops feeding the trolling. If nothing else it is a waste of time...

If you and your fellows cannot communicate in a normal polite way - without snobbery like "respect my authority here" we should end this discussion right now.

Meanwhile I am the customer of the product who pays for the upgrades on a regular basis (as long as I have a free time to devote for the sim) and I will continue to require the quality for money - realistic tank models (not based on subjective literature descriptions but on real life counterparts instead), normal detailed clickable cockpits on all tanks (which is a black hole for Challenger II now), detailed driver places (which are also completely blank now).

You may call me "trolling", "bitching", "bullying" etc. etc. - I don't care about every pompous idiot's opinion. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you still not get it.

The developers not ignore you. Just you don't give any picture, AAR, technical specification, what are your opinion is based. No numbers, not technical manuals.

Are you handle Challanger 2s in real life? Or T-90S? You know someone who does? Or your complain based on feeling?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you and your fellows cannot communicate in a normal polite way - without snobbery like "respect my authority here" we should end this discussion right now.

Meanwhile I am the customer of the product who pays for the upgrades on a regular basis (as long as I have a free time to devote for the sim) and I will continue to require the quality for money - realistic tank models (not based on subjective literature descriptions but on real life counterparts instead), normal detailed clickable cockpits on all tanks (which is a black hole for Challenger II now), detailed driver places (which are also completely blank now).

Well, when you start posting specific data showing your complaints, such as AAR screen shots, and concrete evidence where things are wrong (simply saying something is "nerfed" is not concrete evidence), then we will take you seriously. Otherwise you are just bitching, and I am sorry if you get upset with that, but everyone has tried their best to extract this information from you to no avail. This is where you come off as just simply trolling.

Also, the point of my post was that we clearly said that one important aspect of your complaint (British ammunition) actually IS under investigation (for some time now) and that something MAY actually change in this area in the future. We didn't have to share this bit of information, and a rational person would have been placated by this revelation, but not you. Instead your course of action is to ignore this and continue to disrespectfully piss in the developer's and community's ear. Very nice.

...I don't care about every pompous idiot's opinion.
The feeling is mutual.
Link to post
Share on other sites
.and I will continue to require the quality for money - realistic tank models (not based on subjective literature descriptions but on real life counterparts instead),

And this is just what we are asking from you, so ,you see we all want the same thing, there is no need to get defensive or name calling.

If you feel that a AFV is incorrect in some area then just provide the data from a reliable source to aid the developers in correcting the issue.

It's really in your court, id the issue, provide the necessary data, and if correct and creditable most likely in the next up-grade it will be fixed.

You must have read here that over the years some of us have seen quite a lot of claims over this and that. Some have provided good reliable data and issues were fixed, so please step back, gather your data , and submit it here for the developers.

The others with no data are just fan-boys, so who are you?:confused:

Is this not the way to advance your claims?:luxhello:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is trolling- trolls aren't really passionate about what they are claiming, they just want to get your goat for the entertainment of only that.

I think he genuinely believes there is something wrong with the model, and he won't back down from that conviction. You've seen it before from others, they aren't trolling, they probably are astonished because expectations don't seem to conform with the model, therefore, it's easier to believe that the model is the easier thing to mess up rather than something that is probably deeply believed in- call it cognitive dissonance.

Stanny, as a neutral customer, I have listend to the argument from both sides, I leave the defense of eSim to eSim. But I have good faith that they aren't messing around with this, there's too much lost time and development cost spent on a model they aren't being compensated for to develop, since no one contracted with them to produce a Challenger II model, they did that on their own dime. There's no bad intent to waste resources on a bad model. Furthermore, as fans of the subject matter themselves, they would very much like to get it as close as anyone possible can. Finally, I have nothing to prove them wrong. Even if their model had fairly large deviations, that's still better than any information than I have to offer as a counterpoint. I might even point to some evidence that they are on track here based on certain experiments by the UK MOD (which might for example imply that they recognized a deficiency with the gun and ammunition system, when they apparently conducted tests with the Rheinmetall 120 mm gun).

No one to date whoever raises the the issue has ever trapped them with better data- when invited to do so, no one offers any sources which factually proves anything to the contrary. I think you really really want to believe that the Challenger is getting the short end of the stick, but set aside all prejudices and any anecdotal reporting for a moment- what eSim asks is for scientific data (or at least as best can be extrapolated and inferred from other good assumptions), but if you don't have that, what are they supposed to go on to make corrections?

I also would remind you that tanks probably shouldn't be compared one on one any way. They fight as part of a team, part of larger organizations and parent hierarchies. The Russians aren't going to simply meet you on the battlefield with a script like: "You take one platoon, we take on platoon, then fight it out to the finish which proves who is the best man." In other words, even a test like putting tanks 3000 meters apart from one another, while which might be good for testing armor values, doesn't necessarily predict any kind of real world outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think we all want the same thing, a better simulation, I still think that the thread made a turn for the worse because of some unnecessary sarcasm. I would ask you all to cut back on the snarky comments because it simply is unconstructive. I don't even know if this thread isn't beyond recovery already, and the blame can be put on both sides of the aisle.

Stanny, as I asked before: Please give us more to investigate, like screenshots from the AAR that identify the impact location and the ammunition type that caused the kill (note that it counts as a kill only if the damage is listed in red color; black damage text only shows that the vehicle was hit when it already had that damage, and nothing new was added). This will allow us to do more tests to investigate what was going on. Please believe me that we do take these issues seriously.

However, nothing that we have investigated so far suggests that your observation was actually correct. I spent three hours with a stochastic test that didn't yield a single kill with an impact in the frontal turret area even at shorter ranges with more powerful ammunition. Others ran tests of the kind that you suggested, despite the open questions about this test's methodology.

So it's really up to you to demonstrate that it happens. Once that you do we will resume our investigation. Also, please post the version number with which you're doing this - 3.002, 3.011, or 3.019?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You must do something with CR2 model. It's obviously broken, three tanks dead at 4053 meters (tried lasing in both first and last return modes). Tank is absolutely weak in frontal combat, just cannot do anything with T-90S (I assume with other top tier Russian tanks too).

SB Pro PE Version 3.011 from full installer in eSim downloads section, Windows XP 32 Bit

O0rJSD.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
You must do something with CR2 model. It's obviously broken, three tanks dead at 4053 meters (tried lasing in both first and last return modes). Tank is absolutely weak in frontal combat, just cannot do anything with T-90S (I assume with other top tier Russian tanks too).

SB Pro PE Version 3.011 from full installer in eSim downloads section, Windows XP 32 Bit

O0rJSD.png

That picture shows that you can lase a target at 4000+m with the cr2. Whats wrong with that? Try to show a picture that PROVES YOUR POINT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look are you that stupid that cannot see that there are three dead vehicles in the platoon? Putting you into my ignore list.

Four CR2s, wedge wide spacing formation, advancing towards platoon of T-90S, fire at will ROE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stanny- while I see the three tanks wiped out on the bottom of the screen, this doesn't reveal anything useful. You will need to take screenshots from the After Action Report, showing hit locations, range, ammo types.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but I would watch calling people names, that's not going to win you points, nor make people believe you are being sincere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look are you that stupid that cannot see that there are three dead vehicles in the platoon? Putting you into my ignore list.

Four CR2s, wedge wide spacing formation, advancing towards platoon of T-90S, fire at will ROE.

Answering serious questions with insults seems to be a habbit by this forum member. :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites
You must do something with CR2 model. It's obviously broken, three tanks dead at 4053 meters (tried lasing in both first and last return modes). Tank is absolutely weak in frontal combat, just cannot do anything with T-90S (I assume with other top tier Russian tanks too).

SB Pro PE Version 3.011 from full installer in eSim downloads section, Windows XP 32 Bit

O0rJSD.png[/quote

Can you posts the AAR from this or screenshots showing the kills

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stanny- while I see the three tanks wiped out on the bottom of the screen, this doesn't reveal anything useful. You will need to take screenshots from the After Action Report, showing hit locations, range, ammo types.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but I would watch calling people names, that's not going to win you points, nor make people believe you are being sincere.

Indeed. I suspect that the T-90 is engaging with ATGMs since the range is >= 4000m. This is playing directly to the T-90 (and other Russian tanks that have tube launched ATGMs) advantage. This is a real and actual force multiplier these tanks have, and an AT-11b in the turret ring or drivers hatch will kill a Challenger 2 (and almost any other tank for that matter) in the real world and in Steel Beasts. The trick there is to: A) not sit out in a perfectly flat area and B) Non-ATGMs fly down range faster than ATGMs do. But we really have no idea here do we, because there are no AAR events, no logs, and no AAR file for that matter.

Regarding the driver's hatch area of the Challenger 2, there just simply is no evidence and no practical way that the Challenger 2 has much more armor in the driver hatch area than we have given it, unless they have some alien world armor plate there, infused with magical properties. Believe me, we have wanted to find proof that something special was there and not a shred of evidence has proven it.

Anyway, the fact is (and this is difficult for some to accept), the T-80, T-90 have an advantage in the 4000 to 5000 meter range due to its missile, at least in terms of accuracy and consistency of impact effects (HEAT warhead being the same penetration at 5000 meters as it is at 1000 meters and all of that). There is a reason why normal KE engagement ranges are between 2000 and 3000 meters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I think- gun launched missiles scoring 'unlucky' hits on critical areas given the range and the fact that there is a surviving tank with some minor damage- if the model has some severe susceptibility, then this tank also should have been quickly finished off like the others sooner or later. Why couldn't the T-90s deliver the coup de grace on this one?

Stanny, this has more to do with shot placement than armor values, there's nothing you can do about a design which has weak points to exploit in spite of the heavy turret protection- unless you want to seriously argue that the turret ring or the driver's port have the equivalent of +3 feet of steel behind them to protect against a Refleks type missile. You can just look at a photo of a CR2 and eyeball where these potential problem areas are. If you don't post an AAR here showing the actual hit location and type of round, then I think we'll all have to assume your problem has been identified and solved.

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...