FV107 Scimitar

[[Not*****] Kanye2028]

So we got the warrior for us british players. What could come next after it? I think this will be a possible canidate what about you? Leave some other Tanks or IFVs the british could possible get what do you think?

[Elusive Ruse]

Not so sure the scimitar would fit well after the warrior, seems like a downgrade to me.

[kamikazi21358]

They’ll probably add it sometime.

[TheReal_WildBoar]

Vickers Mk7/1 as a 10.0 British MBT, also Challenger 1 Mk3 and Challenger 2 prototype
Scorp as a rank 4/5 scout, saladin and possibly a premium Desert Warrior which was basically a warrior with an Lav25 turret and 2 tow launchers strapped to it at 8.3-9.0

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by ♦MΦB♘ΔTheWildBoar:

Vickers Mk7/1 as a 10.0 British MBT, also Challenger 1 Mk3 and Challenger 2 prototype
Scorp as a rank 4/5 scout, saladin and possibly a premium Desert Warrior which was basically a warrior with an Lav25 turret and 2 tow launchers strapped to it at 8.3-9.0

One is a prototype and one is a prototype of a tank that has it’s armor installed under the watch of armed guards - I honestly think the Challenger Mk.3 will be just fine. There are also many Chieftain and Centurion variants that could be reperesented as well.

[TheReal_WildBoar]

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Originally posted by ♦MΦB♘ΔTheWildBoar:

Vickers Mk7/1 as a 10.0 British MBT, also Challenger 1 Mk3 and Challenger 2 prototype
Scorp as a rank 4/5 scout, saladin and possibly a premium Desert Warrior which was basically a warrior with an Lav25 turret and 2 tow launchers strapped to it at 8.3-9.0

One is a prototype and one is a prototype of a tank that has it’s armor installed under the watch of armed guards - I honestly think the Challenger Mk.3 will be just fine. There are also many Chieftain and Centurion variants that could be reperesented as well.

Well... as much as i would like to agree, i really cant see the Challenger Mk3 being much of a 10.0 without significant differences between it and the Challenger Mk2. The lower plate as far as I know is only ERA, so only accounts for slowing the tank down. The only way I could see it working is if they gave it the Jerricho shot with similar pen to the Type90 and or check to see if the Mk3 batch had a more refined variant of Chobham than the Mk2 (I have never heard of this but the thought came to my mind). Yes more cents and chieftains would be nice, the Mk11 specifically at 9.3 or 9.7, but at the very least, i think the Brits need the Vickers Mk7/1 to fill the fast niche that they lack while the Challenger 2 prototype could be excessive although it could fit in due to the fact it was a Challenger 2 turret on a 1 hull, making it a slug of a top tier tank. Also as far as prototypes go, I don't see a massive problem with them, i mean we have the XM1, and the 2K, so the Vickers being a prototype doesn't exactly register as a problem to me.

[kamikazi21358]

Yeah I should have mentioned, I think the Challenger Mk.3 will be good: it is weak to APFSDS on the lower plate, but otherwise this time, CE shells may have difficulty because of ERA, as well if they give it Jerhico ammunition, then you have:
Slower than average tank
Weak to APFSDS on lower plate
In return for
Almost impenetrable turret and UFP
The gun depression to go with it
Lower plate strong to CE
Rifled barrel is accurate, moreso than L/44
Extremely powerful gun
DU ammo that is effective at all ranges

Basically, the issue isn’t the tank, but the maps: all the maps are super tiny for rank 6, the list of things larger maps would fix is extensive. It is a competitive tank, but you have to be in a position to use it right - it’s like German tanks at rank 3-4, they’re good tank when used right, but all the battles are in CQC scenarios so you can’t use them right. If they put the “Realistic” and “Simulator” back into RB and SB, then the tank would be amazing.

[TheReal_WildBoar]

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Yeah I should have mentioned, I think the Challenger Mk.3 will be good: it is weak to APFSDS on the lower plate, but otherwise this time, CE shells may have difficulty because of ERA, as well if they give it Jerhico ammunition, then you have:
Slower than average tank
Weak to APFSDS on lower plate
In return for
Almost impenetrable turret and UFP
The gun depression to go with it
Lower plate strong to CE
Rifled barrel is accurate, moreso than L/44
Extremely powerful gun
DU ammo that is effective at all ranges

Basically, the issue isn’t the tank, but the maps: all the maps are super tiny for rank 6, the list of things larger maps would fix is extensive. It is a competitive tank, but you have to be in a position to use it right - it’s like German tanks at rank 3-4, they’re good tank when used right, but all the battles are in CQC scenarios so you can’t use them right. If they put the “Realistic” and “Simulator” back into RB and SB, then the tank would be amazing.

I do agree the Mk3 could be incredibly effective, and the maps could be better for tanks like the Challenger, but there is a major flaw with this in that the UFP is nowhere near impenetrable, I havent checked but I predict a T29 could pen it decently, at least with the ADPS, which again, I'm unsure as to if it is modelled correctly or not.
As far as the Challenger goes as a whole, no I don't have the documents, but at the same time I don't see how the heaviest MBT does not have strong armour in the Hull, even though the ♥♥♥♥ and Germans manage a stronger hull on bigger or the same sized vehicles that are faster and lighter. I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from in that aspect.

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by ♦MΦB♘ΔTheWildBoar:

but there is a major flaw with this in that the UFP is nowhere near impenetrable, I havent checked but I predict a T29 could pen it decently, at least with the ADPS, which again, I'm unsure as to if it is modelled correctly or not.
As far as the Challenger goes as a whole, no I don't have the documents,

Armor protection analysis is sometimes a little derpy sometimes, but another thing is hull down it is: when your on a hill (even a slight one) pointing your gun down, your effective armor is increased because the UFP is brought back at an even more extreme angle - it’s already one of the if not the strongest UFP in the game, it gets an extra boost as it’s in a hull down position making it probably the strongest hull armor in the game in this position. Plus, usually your turret is the only thing visible anyways, but this would make the tank nearly impenetrable hull down by any ground based weaponry of the 1980s. The biggest issue I believe is just a question of maps: the longest tank kill in history (1991, Desert Storm) was actually funny enough done my a Challenger 1, the range was approximately 4700-5100 meters, or 4.7-5.1km. The largest maps in the entire game barely exceed 3.6x3.6 km. I really think they need to implement 5km by 5km maps minimum for rank 5-6 battle, maybe up to 8km x 8km for the more open ones for 8.0-10.0 battles exclusively. Even Kursk and maps such as these feel small at these BRs. Put on a bigger more realistic map, I believe the Challenger will go from one of the worst top tier tanks to one of the best - imagine being on a 8km mostly open map in a Challenger, with it’s accurate rifled gun and the ranges to be extremely difficult to hit your lower plate, even if not hull down...
Also another suggestion that would be nice at all gamemodes, an assault battle type as well. Say a team gets all 3 points and the other team has to take them one at a time, like a realistic attacker-defender scenario. It would be a sometimes RB thing, and more often in SB. Not always, but it can be adjusted to be on average more frequent for some teams at some BRs - for example, Axis teams will be on average the attackers more at low tier like early WW2, Allies would be on average the attackers at mid tier like mid-late war, and on average the Soviets would be the attackers late tier (soviet doctrine was more about the attack), while they attack NATO tanks.
This would also give not only Britain but most nations their historical tactics: it would solve the Germans not being very good at rank 3-4 as much, but it would give NATO some advantages too at high tier. As noticed, the chieftains and challengers are built for defense, they can be used for their intended roll: sitting hull down, fighting off waves of attacking soviet tanks in Western Germany. The same goes to many other NATO tanks: Abrams, Leopards, M60s, they have stronger turrets than hulls; AMX-30s and Leopard 2s, more mobile from the era before composites, take up hull down positions and fire, then use their superior mobility to back up and reposition, etc. Meanwhile, Soviet tanks wouldn’t be at a disadvantage: everything about their tanks reflect their Cold War tactics, attacking. Low profile, autoloaders for the cramped space as well as them being more reliable on the move, all round armored profile and not just an armored turret, lack of reverse in many cases, etc. The tanks would be able to be used how they were meant to be used (not just at the Cold War lvl, but at all levels). Of course, this wouldn’t be an every battle or every other battle thing, and the Soviets wouldn’t be the attacking side every battle at high tier, but you get the point.

The reason you can’t find the documents: we’re at the age of where we start encountering tanks that have classified armor, such as the M1 and Challenger. Since these tanks are almost 40 years old now though, we can get close to accurate stats, but there are obvious margins of error.

I personally hope Gaijin stops at the end of the Cold War (approximately) overall, for multiple reasons, and they can focus on other stuff like adding the hundreds of tanks skipped and the mechanics not in game and bigger maps, etc. Overall, I think it would be mostly balanced: almost every nation has top tier competitive tanks:
M1A1(HA)
M1A1
T-80UM
T-80U (1990)
T-80U
T-72 obr.1989
Challenger Mk.3
Challenger Mk.2
Challenger Mk.1
Type 90
Type 74s
Leopard 2A4 ap.C
Leopard 2A4 ap.B (current)
Leopard 2A1-2A3
B1 Centaurio (not an MBT, but powerful)
C1 Ariete (production began before end of Cold War)
AMX-30B2
Leclerc (production began before end of Cold War)
Etc.
At LEAST temporarily until they catch up in many other aspects in their uncontrolled dash to modern tanks.

One reason I am pointing this out: it is extremely hard to find armor stats on the Challenger I, but it has nothing on the Challenger II. We’re getting into the tanks that are in service with the most modern nations, these are the main tanks of XX nation. 80’s tanks have been out for a while, they have been used in modern tank combat, we have good stats and estimates, etc. But the reason I fear they might not even ever add the Challenger 2: the tank is classified in multiple ways (like many tanks), but extremely classified expecially armor wise. Like as I mention, when they put the armor together, it is under the observation of British armed guards: documents? There are none.