So a new T-72B3 is coming

[habanero]

Thoughts on how the armor will fare at toptier?

[Omega Sirius]

Leopard 2A7+ is the only solution to T-72B3.

It's the only way to balance it out.

[-NODER-_Novastorm_]

With this game mechanics you can take out any mbt face to face playing with a crap mbt:
"oh i cant pierce it?"
"well shoot and destroy hes gun barrel".........
Close enought, you can jump and play with it before killing it....

[Ritterbrudder]

Ki'agh の投稿を引用：

Ritterbrudder の投稿を引用：

lol my first language is my native language english is my second language plus i use british english not usa english

I'm British and use British English, though if it's not your first language that explains why you might miss something like that (English is a weird language)

oh cool if britian never exist i would be a dumb native and a pagan kuddos to the queen and spiffinf brit.hopefully a new good russian tank is coming

[Ritterbrudder]

Ki'agh の投稿を引用：

ʟÆᴍꜱ cs.money の投稿を引用：

the reload speeds are correct, most 120's are 6 sec min except Britain with 5 sec, why the T-80U is bad is because it gets one shot from all angles, front, side and back, sure its a design flaw, its not really that good at anything, except maybe long range and most of the time you will get one shot anyway because of the drivers port that is just huge, at least the challenger 2 can hull down and be affective, then there is turret rotation speed, that all nato tanks are better at, gun elevation speed is better, (challengers is little better than the T tanks), now the speed, Challenger isnt fast yes but its meant to not be fast, its a hull down tank or support tank. staying at range etc (sorry if its hard to read)

One of the main reasons it's bad in War Thunder is because speed is so heavily emphasised.

Having a "hull down support tank" (which the challenger is absolutely not designed for, it's an MBT like every other MBT but the WT one doesn't have the full extra armour packages yet) is a bad thing, since being hull down isn't what wins matches, flanking and capping wins matches which the Challenger is particularly poor at thanks to the weakspots.

You think the Driver's hatch weakspot is big? Challenger has that too. The mantlet is a bigger weakspot than the T-series tanks though the turret face is a bit stronger. The lower plate weakspot of the Challenger is much larger than on the T-series tanks.

So, the Challenger has larger/more weakspots than the T-series, is slower, and only has the benefit of stronger armour in the already strong places and a faster reload.

challenger is one of the most deadliest mbt in the world if i was right no casualties on the tank

[kamikazi21358]

Ritterbrudder の投稿を引用：

challenger is one of the most deadliest mbt in the world if i was right no casualties on the tank

Well I mean, yes, that tends to happen when nobody uses your tank. Only Britain used it and used it in smaller numbers, compared to the thousands of M1s made and the tens of thousands of T-62s and T-72s. Not saying that it is bad by any remote stretch of the imagination, but if you throw a relatively small number of tanks at mostly Insurgent forces and half-century old tanks, yeah the odd are in it’s favor.

Also there were casualties, but only one I think got damaged when an RPG shot it’s lower plate, and one was destroyed by another Challenger. But no challenger tanks were casualties in combat I think.

[Kay]

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

Ritterbrudder の投稿を引用：

challenger is one of the most deadliest mbt in the world if i was right no casualties on the tank

Well I mean, yes, that tends to happen when nobody uses your tank. Only Britain used it and used it in smaller numbers, compared to the thousands of M1s made and the tens of thousands of T-62s and T-72s. Not saying that it is bad by any remote stretch of the imagination, but if you throw a relatively small number of tanks at mostly Insurgent forces and half-century old tanks, yeah the odd are in it’s favor.

Also there were casualties, but only one I think got damaged when an RPG shot it’s lower plate, and one was destroyed by another Challenger. But no challenger tanks were casualties in combat I think.

There have been three incidents with the Challenger 2 that we know about so far;

An IED penetrated the lower plate before any amour was installed there and the driver lost a few toes.

The second one was a friendly fire incident involving HESH hitting the commander's open hatch, 2 dead in that one.

The third was an RPG-29 tandem warhead bouncing off the ground, hitting the lower plate (when only ERA was installed) and penetrating, injuring the driver's foot.

All of these with Challenger 2s, and all before the Dorchester block was installed to the lower plate, so fingers crossed it provides enough protection from tandem warheads to protect the tank, but we don't know yet.

[Doctor Eggman]

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

Ritterbrudder の投稿を引用：

challenger is one of the most deadliest mbt in the world if i was right no casualties on the tank

Well I mean, yes, that tends to happen when nobody uses your tank. Only Britain used it and used it in smaller numbers, compared to the thousands of M1s made and the tens of thousands of T-62s and T-72s. Not saying that it is bad by any remote stretch of the imagination, but if you throw a relatively small number of tanks at mostly Insurgent forces and half-century old tanks, yeah the odd are in it’s favor.

Also there were casualties, but only one I think got damaged when an RPG shot it’s lower plate, and one was destroyed by another Challenger. But no challenger tanks were casualties in combat I think.

Not a fair thing to claim really. The vast majority of Abrams Tanks produced have never seen combat or been put abroad, whereas a far greater number of Challengers has been deployed relative to the amount of models produced.

When you put the number of in-service Abrams tanks compared to the number of Challenger tanks that have been in-service the Abrams looks pretty terrible by comparison. And the Abrams has been fighting the same enemies as the Challenger has, as they work in-tandem with each other.

By comparison not a single Challenger tank has been "catastrophically" destroyed in any case, despite being put into similar conditions as other NATO tanks, every tank has been repairable or salvageable in one way or another regardless of the incident.

At least 25-50% of all Challengers produced have seen combat, potentially more, if you compare American tanks or the Leopard tanks they don't come anywhere near close to that percentage.

[Obi-Wan]

Hatsune Miku の投稿を引用：

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

Well I mean, yes, that tends to happen when nobody uses your tank. Only Britain used it and used it in smaller numbers, compared to the thousands of M1s made and the tens of thousands of T-62s and T-72s. Not saying that it is bad by any remote stretch of the imagination, but if you throw a relatively small number of tanks at mostly Insurgent forces and half-century old tanks, yeah the odd are in it’s favor.

Also there were casualties, but only one I think got damaged when an RPG shot it’s lower plate, and one was destroyed by another Challenger. But no challenger tanks were casualties in combat I think.

Not a fair thing to claim really. The vast majority of Abrams Tanks produced have never seen combat or been put abroad, whereas a far greater number of Challengers has been deployed relative to the amount of models produced.

When you put the number of in-service Abrams tanks compared to the number of Challenger tanks that have been in-service the Abrams looks pretty terrible by comparison. And the Abrams has been fighting the same enemies as the Challenger has, as they work in-tandem with each other.

By comparison not a single Challenger tank has been "catastrophically" destroyed in any case, despite being put into similar conditions as other NATO tanks, every tank has been repairable or salvageable in one way or another regardless of the incident.

At least 25-50% of all Challengers produced have seen combat, potentially more, if you compare American tanks or the Leopard tanks they don't come anywhere near close to that percentage.

Excuse me, the US made a lot more of those, they're not a cheapo like the brits are....

[Obi-Wan]

Omega Sirius の投稿を引用：

Leopard 2A7+ is the only solution to T-72B3.

It's the only way to balance it out.

10/10 agree. The B3 looks like it's gonna have armor at least equivalent to the 2A5 on the turret, if not better, and the hull will be so much more protected that DM33 is likely not going to be able to pen it in the front anywhere...and that's most of what the NATO tanks use...or at least the equivalent, with the exception of Italy and France .... don't count the Swedish because they're not tied down and they can be both with and against Germany or USSR. We need at least a better round or even a better gun....

[kamikazi21358]

Obi-Wan の投稿を引用：

Omega Sirius の投稿を引用：

Leopard 2A7+ is the only solution to T-72B3.

It's the only way to balance it out.

10/10 agree. The B3 looks like it's gonna have armor at least equivalent to the 2A5 on the turret, if not better, and the hull will be so much more protected that DM33 is likely not going to be able to pen it in the front anywhere...and that's most of what the NATO tanks use...or at least the equivalent, with the exception of Italy and France .... don't count the Swedish because they're not tied down and they can be both with and against Germany or USSR. We need at least a better round or even a better gun....

wait, you're unironically agreeing? So Germany's best elite tank in the world right now is required to counter Russia's upgrade of their obselete tank to even compete?
In that case, I can't wait for the even more modern T-72B3M, or even better literally any of the T-90s and the T-14. The feast of NATO tears will be bountiful!

Obi-Wan の投稿を引用：

~

In seriousness it probably will only be a fraction better than the current T-80U, if better at all. It'll have only a very little more frontal hull protection, in return for better sides and turret. But all soviet tanks have the upper hull and the center turret weakspots, and it of course should have excellent firepower and armor, because it'll be like a heavy tank at high tier currently - it's mobility with a 840HP diesel engine will be considerably less than that of a tank with a 1500 HP turbine.
While 3BM46 and 3BM42M, if they even add it, will be very good, but I don't think it'll be the best round in the game. The shells of tanks like the ariete or whatever should have more penetration. As mentioned earlier, adding to the penetration calculator, it is possible it'll have 577-over 600mm penetration, but the best shells in the game have much more than 600mm.

Essentially, it'll be a very hard to kill tank, with potentially very good firepower if historical shells are added, but it'll have the same glaring weakspots that'll disable it or 1-shot it, and it'll have less than 2/3rds the mobility of the other top tier tanks.

[Obi-Wan]

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

Obi-Wan の投稿を引用：

10/10 agree. The B3 looks like it's gonna have armor at least equivalent to the 2A5 on the turret, if not better, and the hull will be so much more protected that DM33 is likely not going to be able to pen it in the front anywhere...and that's most of what the NATO tanks use...or at least the equivalent, with the exception of Italy and France .... don't count the Swedish because they're not tied down and they can be both with and against Germany or USSR. We need at least a better round or even a better gun....

wait, you're unironically agreeing? So Germany's best elite tank in the world right now is required to counter Russia's upgrade of their obselete tank to even compete?
In that case, I can't wait for the even more modern T-72B3M, or even better literally any of the T-90s and the T-14. The feast of NATO tears will be bountiful!

Obi-Wan の投稿を引用：

~

In seriousness it probably will only be a fraction better than the current T-80U, if better at all. It'll have only a very little more frontal hull protection, in return for better sides and turret. But all soviet tanks have the upper hull and the center turret weakspots, and it of course should have excellent firepower and armor, because it'll be like a heavy tank at high tier currently - it's mobility with a 840HP diesel engine will be considerably less than that of a tank with a 1500 HP turbine.
While 3BM46 and 3BM42M, if they even add it, will be very good, but I don't think it'll be the best round in the game. The shells of tanks like the ariete or whatever should have more penetration. As mentioned earlier, adding to the penetration calculator, it is possible it'll have 577-over 600mm penetration, but the best shells in the game have much more than 600mm.

Essentially, it'll be a very hard to kill tank, with potentially very good firepower if historical shells are added, but it'll have the same glaring weakspots that'll disable it or 1-shot it, and it'll have less than 2/3rds the mobility of the other top tier tanks.

If you mean the breach, that's every MBT's weakness. If you mean the hull, have you looked at the NATO MBTs' hulls? They're garbage, meanwhile I have very few points to shoot a T-80U and pen while he can just lolpen my hull in my 2A5 ... nice ... your upper reply was full of ♥♥♥♥, just like you.

[Læms]

kamikazi21358 の投稿を引用：

Obi-Wan の投稿を引用：

10/10 agree. The B3 looks like it's gonna have armor at least equivalent to the 2A5 on the turret, if not better, and the hull will be so much more protected that DM33 is likely not going to be able to pen it in the front anywhere...and that's most of what the NATO tanks use...or at least the equivalent, with the exception of Italy and France .... don't count the Swedish because they're not tied down and they can be both with and against Germany or USSR. We need at least a better round or even a better gun....

wait, you're unironically agreeing? So Germany's best elite tank in the world right now is required to counter Russia's upgrade of their obselete tank to even compete?
In that case, I can't wait for the even more modern T-72B3M, or even better literally any of the T-90s and the T-14. The feast of NATO tears will be bountiful!

Obi-Wan の投稿を引用：

~

In seriousness it probably will only be a fraction better than the current T-80U, if better at all. It'll have only a very little more frontal hull protection, in return for better sides and turret. But all soviet tanks have the upper hull and the center turret weakspots, and it of course should have excellent firepower and armor, because it'll be like a heavy tank at high tier currently - it's mobility with a 840HP diesel engine will be considerably less than that of a tank with a 1500 HP turbine.
While 3BM46 and 3BM42M, if they even add it, will be very good, but I don't think it'll be the best round in the game. The shells of tanks like the ariete or whatever should have more penetration. As mentioned earlier, adding to the penetration calculator, it is possible it'll have 577-over 600mm penetration, but the best shells in the game have much more than 600mm.

Essentially, it'll be a very hard to kill tank, with potentially very good firepower if historical shells are added, but it'll have the same glaring weakspots that'll disable it or 1-shot it, and it'll have less than 2/3rds the mobility of the other top tier tanks.

T-90M/S, T-80BVM etc TOR-2M xd

[Ritterbrudder]

Obi-Wan の投稿を引用：

Hatsune Miku の投稿を引用：

Not a fair thing to claim really. The vast majority of Abrams Tanks produced have never seen combat or been put abroad, whereas a far greater number of Challengers has been deployed relative to the amount of models produced.

When you put the number of in-service Abrams tanks compared to the number of Challenger tanks that have been in-service the Abrams looks pretty terrible by comparison. And the Abrams has been fighting the same enemies as the Challenger has, as they work in-tandem with each other.

By comparison not a single Challenger tank has been "catastrophically" destroyed in any case, despite being put into similar conditions as other NATO tanks, every tank has been repairable or salvageable in one way or another regardless of the incident.

At least 25-50% of all Challengers produced have seen combat, potentially more, if you compare American tanks or the Leopard tanks they don't come anywhere near close to that percentage.

Excuse me, the US made a lot more of those, they're not a cheapo like the brits are....

dont mess with the Royal tea XD.Whats the price of one challenger

[B.D.Godde]

For those of you who think this new T-72 will be unstoppable
you should trust gaijin by now. If they are going to add a new T-72, then they are going to add some NATO rounds that can lolpen it. That's just the way this game works

[Obi-Wan]

Ritterbrudder の投稿を引用：

Obi-Wan の投稿を引用：

Excuse me, the US made a lot more of those, they're not a cheapo like the brits are....

dont mess with the Royal tea XD.Whats the price of one challenger

I think the americans already did....in Boston ;)