Jump to content

Challenger II is underpowered


Recommended Posts

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?

This got me wondering quite a bit, given that THERE IS NO BM-19 in Steel Beasts, and there never was.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

This got me wondering quite a bit, given that THERE IS NO BM-19 in Steel Beasts, and there never was.

I was meaning 1994 issue 125 mm smooth bore round. It is difficult to remember all designations.

I suspect that the T-90 is engaging with ATGMs since the range is >= 4000m.

I tried popping smokes in order to block the missile guidance but with no avail - missile goes through the smoke. What is interesting is that Abrams SEP deals with these missiles without any significant problems, only some vehicles suffer minor damages.

My idea with those tests is to find out which Western tanks can actually win a classic open battle against top tier Russian tanks, just pure face to face stand off, without crawling in ambushes, without hitting and running etc. This shows their actual ability. Will be testing Leopard 2E now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BM42M... which is more advanced than anything fielded on a large scale by any eastern bloc country (Typically only BM42 WHA (and previously BM32 DU), with most users of T72 using BM9, BM12, BM15 or BM17 steel rounds).

No CR2 has ever faced anything more advanced than BM17 (and probably not even that).

The CR1 in ODS were predominantly facing off against T54 derivatives... which they fairly predictably butchered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Will be testing Leopard 2E now.

Whoa! I honestly think you might be getting a little ahead of yourself and effecting other people of this forum in a... not so positive manner.

Maybe by laying the first claim to rest instead of looking for more ill-defined issues this thread could proceed in a more logical fashion? :sad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are sitting in the open, at a range to their advantage, with nothing protecting your hull (which is a very big weak point). No wonder you are losing vehicles. You could have something out of Hammer's Slammers and still get the thing lost if you are playing to your opponent's advantage like that.

If you are showing more than this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Leclerc-openphotonet_PICT5995.JPG) while stationary then you are doing it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, i like guys like rotareng. He came here with some out of the box thinking and testing that identified a good number of bugs. And he backed each up with vid. This chap only wastes time and forum space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
here is the challenger that I was using:

If you review the AAR you will see one Challenger took on 9 leopards 2E's.

All with shots to weak points in the Leo's armour- which exist out of necessary design compromise on pretty much every tank ever built. Including the Challenger 2.

*Edit* Which is of course the smart way to go about targeting a hostile vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have made some tests and i have seen a lot of strange kills,some screenshots:...

Is this correct?

Yes, they are all correct. The round being used is rated at 840mm RHA, and all the hits are to the roof. The only one that isn't is #2, but the hit is in an ideal spot where the GPS passes from the interior to the roof and the armor is inherently thinner there (its about half thickness there than the rest of the turret front, but it s a small area of about the exact width and height of the GPS). And yes, the armor models are detailed enough to model those small weaknesses. ;)

Edited by Volcano
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looks can be deceiving. The way the simulation works is - if the round travels along the length of a surface then if it has "penetrated" that surface's LOS thickness (after the extreme angle is factored in of course), then it has simply penetrated. It doesn't care if it the penetration is at 0 degrees or is at 90 degrees. So, a round traveling down the the length of a surface that has enough power to penetrate it, will cause normal damage effects. This is not unreasonable though, considering that shots down the length of a roof would still generate spalling.

Of course this also applies to all vehicles in Steel Beasts also, not just to the Challenger 2. And no, the upper-outer roof armor will not cause a kill on the Challenger 2, the penetration into the turret is happening below that layer (actually in front of and through the loader's hatch area, before the outer top armor area).

Anyway, that is not to say that the simulation could not improve in that area, it is what is in order to keep things manageable though.

Edited by Volcano
clarifications
Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of the shots do appear to be passing through the spaced armour though and not into the turret itself.

Keep out of it CR2_, last thing this thread needs is legitimate input from someone who really knows his way round a challenger :D

this is Sarcasm by the way.

In UKA as you can imagine we use CR2s much of the time and have seen both the best and the worst of this wonderful tank in SB. I do not doubt the armour model is less than perfect however it is based on the best info eSim have to go on. Until that changes, we must continue to work around these weaknesses (and hell even if eSim got new data it could be WORSE than we currently have!!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep out of it CR2_, last thing this thread needs is legitimate input from someone who really knows his way round a challenger :D

this is Sarcasm by the way.

In UKA as you can imagine we use CR2s much of the time and have seen both the best and the worst of this wonderful tank in SB. I do not doubt the armour model is less than perfect however it is based on the best info eSim have to go on. Until that changes, we must continue to work around these weaknesses (and hell even if eSim got new data it could be WORSE than we currently have!!!)

Stop stirring the pot Hoggy.

Everyone knows the Chieftain is where its at.

That thing is/was made of unobtainium, and the real reason we don't use it anymore is John Major's Government needed the scrap value cash after the state Thatcher left the place in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was meaning 1994 issue 125 mm smooth bore round. It is difficult to remember all designations.

Well, they are explicitly listed in every event in the AAR. You don't have to memorize it, you just need to take a screenshot and post it here. That's no excessive demand on our part.

I tried popping smokes in order to block the missile guidance

Well, the AT-11 is a beam-riding missile, not homing in on a beam reflection. So it can fly through some layers of smoke. Working as designed.

In summary, you came out of the sun, all guns blazing to blast us for our shoddy work on the Challenger. The dust begins to settle, and I still don't see much to back up your wild accusations. Look at what Colebrook did one page back. That is exemplary reporting of suspicious events that allows everybody to see what you saw, understand what you're asking, and allows us to explain why what's shown there may seem to run counter to expectations but still makes sense ... or to admit that we've been wrong, so we can address the issue and fix it. So far you haven't accomplished anything except wasting a lot of people's time trying to replicate your reporting. I spent three hours on this, others probably even more collectively.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to take the matter seriously as well, and you have to respect the impact that these allegations have. People start to investigate. It costs time that we can't spend on more fruitful efforts. An unfounded wild claim is a net negative contribution. That's not to say that suspicious observations shouldn't be reported and that we're only tolerating uncritical obeisance. But deliver FACTS, not opinions. Opinions are like armpits - everybody has them, they're plenty, and they smell.

At eSim Games, we're engineers. We're agnostic to the merits and flaws of the individual vehicle/weapon system, except that we want to try and model them - the good AND the bad, to the extent that the limitations of a real-time simulation, contemporary computer hardware, and our development budget allows. We TRY not to be ignorant. Above all, we're human and make mistakes, and we are quite aware of this. I think I can say that we have a team culture of never being happy with past accomplishments (modest professional pride is permitted though). There's always something where we can do better, and in principle we welcome input even if it doesn't make us look good initially. But I think that pretty much anyone who has stuck around for more than one or two upgrades will admit that Steel Beasts has always become better, and at a remarkable pace, and that we admit when we've been wrong, or new information has come to light.

But please don't abuse that culture. Don't send us on fools' errands with bogus claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my early days in the BBS (Online Bulletin Boards) community until today, I think that has to be the best response I have ever seen concerning online gaming.

Bravo Ssnake. From historical observation I know you didn't post that simply to gain applause but it most definitely deserves it. Clap Clap Clap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From my early days in the BBS (Online Bulletin Boards) community until today, I think that has to be the best response I have ever seen concerning online gaming.

Bravo Ssnake. From historical observation I know you didn't post that simply to gain applause but it most definitely deserves it. Clap Clap Clap.

:thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
From my early days in the BBS (Online Bulletin Boards) community until today, I think that has to be the best response I have ever seen concerning online gaming.

Bravo Ssnake. From historical observation I know you didn't post that simply to gain applause but it most definitely deserves it. Clap Clap Clap.

+1 :luxhello:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately I don't have any information on ammunition for the UK's L11A5 or L30A1 yet I find it hard to believe that the latest and greatest APFSDS ammunition for the L30A1 penetrates less than estimates for various modern 105mm APFSDS shells for the old L7A3.

Well at the risk of getting the dead horse back out.

There are differences in the length of the penetrator of the fixed 105mm APFSDS ammo and the two piece 120mm APFSDS ammo.

The 120mm is shorter, therefore I can understand why its penetration data is lower.

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...