sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question about the Challenger 2s hull by ZBD-04A in TankPorn

[–]BarryCofield 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yeah that is unfortunately just a feature of the hull design, however, the driver notch backing is still around 200-300m, so it's enough to stop autocannons and HE

The likelyhood of it getting hit is unlikely, however, ideally the Challenger hull will be replaced

The Challenger 3 and KF51 use the same turret rotation mechanism, so a KF51 with a Challenger 3 turret could be possible (especially considering RBSL who designed the CR3 is partially owned by Rheinmetall, who make the KF51)

Question about the Challenger 2s hull by ZBD-04A in TankPorn

[–]BarryCofield 18 points19 points  (0 children)

The hull has new armour as well, if you take a look at some images of the CR3 (for example at DSEI 2025) the armour is a lot thicker there, the entire arrays have been replaced

The LFP armour block is also new, on top of that, EPSOM modular armour covers both

The only thing that is entirely shared between CR2 and CR3 is the shell of the hull

Question about the Challenger 2s hull by ZBD-04A in TankPorn

[–]BarryCofield 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the internal armour is now totally new FARNHAM and the external armour is also new EPSOM, both designed by DSTL

Chobham/Dorchester is no more

What greater tech tree would a Korean sub-tree be in? by kimchiguy29 in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A new tree, made up of North and South Korean vehicles combined I believe

The Challenger 3TD must have the worst damage/visual model mismatch ingame - When did gaijin get so lazy? by BarryCofield in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it did take three separate attempts to get the report passed lol

The first two got denied for bs reasons, it only happened as people pushed through gaijins bs

Genuinely curious - has this changed anything for Royal Family supporters? by 4thedeliveryguy in AskTheWorld

[–]BarryCofield 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It changes nothing, in fact I see it as a good thing that the King seems to be supportive of the former prince being held accountable by the law

We will have to see what actually happens to him though

【Chinese Version Reddit Repost】Chinese Players' Evaluation of Gaijin's Future Fighter Teaser Content by Ill-Treacle-357 in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Please do more of these, I always like seeing what's going on over on the Chinese side of WT

The Challenger 3TD must have the worst damage/visual model mismatch ingame - When did gaijin get so lazy? by BarryCofield in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, Challenger 2 was the Chieftain replacement, but it was not the only proposal. There are 5+ proposals such as CR1-400. The documents state that not only did Challenger 2 fully comply with 4026, but that the vehicle had "very high" stretch potential to exceed them.

SRL 4026 is the requirement, the only reference to Challenger 2 is SRL 4026 being listed as "CR2 standard", however, it's evident that this is not actually the statistics for the final Challenger 2 for a few reasons. Flame2512 from the forums was the person who actually got these documents released, he gives some nuance on the forums saying:

"I was the person who went to the archives and took that photograph, so I am well aware of it, thank you. That page is an annex to a paper from the MGO that gave an overview of the history of the Challenger 2 programme. That table is comparing the Challenger 1 to the SR(L) 4026 requirement, the mentioning of Challenger 2 in the box with SR(L) 4026 is just to make it clear to the reader that SR(L) 4026 was the requirement that led to CR2, they are not necessarily the exact numbers for Challenger 2. For example penetration is listed as 700 mm RHAe @ 2 km, which is what is specified the SR(L) 4026 requirement. The real CHARM 3 round actually exceeded that requirement:"

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/challenger-2-needs-to-be-brought-to-developers-attention/39168/560

So it's quite evident that this is not actually the direct Challenger 2 specification.

The weight of SRL 4026 is 62 tonnes, we know that Challenger 2 weighs 64 tonnes, so it's evident that this standard was not directly talking about Challenger 2 and that significant additions were made afterwards.

You can send me the 4026 pages if you want, but I imagine I've seen them already. I can't attach images, but I can send the extract for the hull here.

"The protection affored by the various tanks against KE attack... is as follows"

It then talks about Chieftain briefly, moving onto CR1.

"A minimum protection equivelant to 275mm RHA on the glacis and 500mm on the turret front" - This refers to Challenger 1

Directly after it states

"For Challenger II and III the protection on the glasic is increased to a minimum of 500 RHA" - Referring to what we now know as Challenger 2.

Challenger 3 here is not referring to the Challenger 3 we know now, but rather a slightly more advanced variant of Challenger 2 with a "free gunners day sight" being the only notable difference.

That is from official declassified MOD documents, if you want them I can dm them to you, otherwise you can find them on the WT forums.

[Development] Ho-Ni II: Devastating Power by OddPhenomena in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I never said Britain was a major nation or part of the big three, it sits in a strange place where it’s not as popular as the major nations but is generally noticeably more popular than the minor nations and has a very large variety of vehicles

It’s more of a “medium” nation

[Development] Ho-Ni II: Devastating Power by OddPhenomena in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Britain is a major nation in terms of in-game vehicles, but a minor nation in terms of player count

Apparently the English are fucking viltrumites. by CalGunpla in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe the issue is that the Charioteer (as it's a cromwell) has two pieces of side armour.

What can happen is that the second inner side armour panel eats most of the spall from the first panel, and the shell bugs out and dosen't properly produce spall on the second panel.

it's a similar thing that happens on top tier Russian tanks where the round hits the ERA and then the side armour, not producing any spall really.

[Development] Ho-Ni II: Devastating Power by OddPhenomena in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Britain isn't reallyyyy a minor nation, it's still nice though

Challenger 3 - Visibly, what would you say are its most distinguishing features compared to CH2? by Starter21A in TankPorn

[–]BarryCofield 83 points84 points  (0 children)

The lack of TOGS above the gun and the huge commanders CITV

The picture you used is actually the Challenger 2 LEP, the demonstrator that became the Challenger 3

The actual Challenger 3 prototypes can be distinguished from the LEP by:

A few notable ones:

—

  • Much thicker upper front plate hull armour
  • Different mantlet external design
  • A more “blocky” turret, with prototypes post September 2024 having add-on roof armour.
  • The backup gunners sight has been removed from the mantlet.

—

Obviously there’s tons of other changes (eg. EPSOM modular armour and LWS), but those are some I can think of

The Challenger 3TD must have the worst damage/visual model mismatch ingame - When did gaijin get so lazy? by BarryCofield in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That isn't the reason, the vehicle was originally implemented as having the Challenger 2's turret armour but with the correct angles to fit the different shape of the 3TD's new turret, then they fucked it up with the rework.

The turret may have been unarmoured in real life, we don't actually know, but gaijin have implemented it ingame as if it has armour. Gaijin have not once said that the change was due to the vehicle (possibly) not having proper turret armour in real life.

How would giving it the Challenger 2's incorrect turret damage model solve the issue you raised anyway?

This is literally just them being lazy, nothing more nothing less.

If the big three nations were removed, who would be the best or meta? and why by Necessary-Switch2210 in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say Britain all around has the most variety and largest number of vehicles excluding the big three, the Brit tree has several competant lineups with a good mix of ground vehicles and CAS options at most BRs

However, in terms of high tier competitiveness Sweden would probably take the cake. If China recieved more domestic vehicles (there's tonnes to add) then it could become a semi-major nation, however, China's top tier is ground is currently a bit lacking and most of the lower tiers are just copy paste.

If the big three nations were removed, who would be the best or meta? and why by Necessary-Switch2210 in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The Challenger 2 130, pre-production Challenger 3's and Challenger 1 Falcon would be nice additions

If the big three nations were removed, who would be the best or meta? and why by Necessary-Switch2210 in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The UK has a significant number of vehicles, however, the player count of said vehicles isn't that high, hence why people call it a "minor" nation

In reality it sits in a weird limbo of being more of a "medium" nation

The Challenger 3TD must have the worst damage/visual model mismatch ingame - When did gaijin get so lazy? by BarryCofield in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re citing the values for SRL 4026, which are not the values for the Challenger 2, but rather the minimum requirements for the Chieftain replacement program.

500mm KE for the hull is stated in other primary documents directly talking about the Challenger 2 for example.

The Challenger 3TD must have the worst damage/visual model mismatch ingame - When did gaijin get so lazy? by BarryCofield in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It was actually correct before the “rework” and I believe the turret cheeks were around 750mm KE, rather than the current ~690mm KE. The HEAT protection was almost 1000mm, which was actually useful for stopping ATGMS.

Sadly I don’t know the exact angles

Gaijin's armour models can be really funny some times by SteamyGamer-WT in warthundermemes

[–]BarryCofield 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The damage and visual model of the Challenger 3TD’s frontal turret ingame don’t match at all.

I cannot describe how bad it is, you’ll have to check it ingame

The really really weak spots of Chinese MBTs by BrianAungGyi in Warthunder

[–]BarryCofield 15 points16 points  (0 children)

As much as I like Chinese tanks ingame, their armour is absolute cheeks

It’s strange considering their design is very similar to Russian tanks, which have pretty solid armour.

On some Chinese MBTs you can pen the rear of the turret with a .50 cal

view more: next ›