1586 replies to this topic

[RoachCRO]

I'm interested in the Challenger 2.. How much aproximetly armour is on the front plate? And what kind of realistic thingy YOU think should be inplented into the game?

[Listy]

The_Challenger, on 03 May 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Lol, I havent heard "Screech" mentioned for ages. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the stories would involve me being fired, so I will rack brain and think of some more suitable ones. Or if we meet at an event more than happy to chin-wag.

Take Care

Well I did apply to be a "millitary specalist" with MG.net

We'll see what happens. If you ever make it up to Duxford let me know I'm in that area.

[bigmantr]

Hello
I want to ask some questions:
First I want to know if you trained in shooting the Capulet of a tank? Because I find it unrealistic to destroy an entire tank by just shooting at its some metal door all away from the hull.
Second I want to know if the accuracy in game is realistic? I know Tiger tanks managed to shoot down t34s from more then 3000 m , but In game you cant shoot a big tank at 500+ M .
Thank you

[The_Challenger]

Listy, on 03 May 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

Well I did apply to be a "millitary specalist" with MG.net

We'll see what happens. If you ever make it up to Duxford let me know I'm in that area.

A good plan,

Look after yourself

[Intrspace]

Challenger, I have a simple question:
If you could change one thing in WoT, what would it be?

[The_Challenger]

RoachCRO, on 03 May 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

I'm interested in the Challenger 2.. How much aproximetly armour is on the front plate? And what kind of realistic thingy YOU think should be inplented into the game?

Hi,

The dreaded Armour question

I am sure you will appreciate that as CR2 is "In Service" some information is still classified.(Especially as to the ability of composite armour) There are numerous figures quoted on the internet that you can browse. But really more importantly is the protection level i.e its ability to withstand penertration.

CR2 has a ballpark figure of 660mm vs KE(Kinetic Enery) ammunition and 1000mm vs CE (Chemical Enery). Again all dependant on angle of impact/Distance etc.

As for realistic thingy - There are many ongoing projects such as engine sounds/Verbal Commands etc but from a personal point of view I would love to see more terrain variety, and being in the very fortunate position that I am, I fully appreciate the time and effort that goes into making these things happen. Coupled of course with the need to retain good playability.

Take Care

[Chuffy]

I note from the introduction you spent a lot of time in the engine compartment. I always wondered, for all the Tanks and Crews there must be a certain amount of maintenance backup as well with recovery vehicles and what not.

How much maintenance is done by the crews themselves (I'm guessing you'll say a lot!) and how much is done by dedicated repair crews? And for all the tanks fielded, how much maintenance support (mechanics, recovery vehicles, transporters etc) is there?

[MaximusGR]

Welcome Mr Cutland, good to have you here

One question i have regarding modern warfare is about the role of the tank in today's and future battlefields.

Do you think it might be progressively downgraded with anti-tank threats mounting as technology advances? How effective can a tank be given the array of ground-based weapon systems and IEDs and possible lack of aerial superiority in a modern battlefield?

Also, which characteristic of a tank do you appreciate the most? Mobility / Firepower / Armor/ Crew comfort ?

Finally, which crewmember's job do you think is the toughest?

[Listy]

MaximusGR, on 03 May 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

Do you think it might be progressively downgraded with anti-tank threats mounting as technology advances? How effective can a tank be given the array of ground-based weapon systems and IEDs and possible lack of aerial superiority in a modern battlefield?

They've been predicting the demise of the tank due to X since about 1919... It not yet happened

[Tuccy]

Hoever the anti-tank armament gets better, still it has much harder time to hurt a MBT than a thin-skinned APC/IFV and at the same time the MBT is able to deliver impressive direct firepower...

Chuffy, on 03 May 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

I note from the introduction you spent a lot of time in the engine compartment. I always wondered, for all the Tanks and Crews there must be a certain amount of maintenance backup as well with recovery vehicles and what not.

The Chieftain quote reminds me of public premiere of Khalid (Jordan Chieftain) in Czech tank museum... The transmission broke down and they were unable to shift gears, so the beast went everywhere on 1st gear - the noise was tremendous, but it went really anywhere

[Rockarola]

Welcome to the terrordome, Mr. Cutland, I hope the denizens of this dungeon will treat you well

I have a friend who's a former tanker (Leopard 2A5DK and M113 G3 DK), and he told me that he was 50% tanker and 50% greasemonkey. Just how reliable are modern MBT's mechanically, with, say, a 60's Norton on one end of the scale, and a brand new Mercedes on the other?

[KarusaUK]

Listy, on 03 May 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

They've been predicting the demise of the tank due to X since about 1919... It not yet happened

As has already happened with the air (UCAV), when do you think we will get a full sized unmanned MBT? I think currently the main problem with UCAV is bandwidth. Will this be less of a problem with more forward support structure than say a 50-hour endurance UCAV? And more importantly, is CR2 and the likes well protected from the dreaded E-bombs?

another Civi

[Rockarola]

KarusaUK, on 04 May 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

As has already happened with the air (UCAV), when do you think we will get a full sized unmanned MBT? I think currently the main problem with UCAV is bandwidth. Will this be less of a problem with more forward support structure than say a 50-hour endurance UCAV? And more importantly, is CR2 and the likes well protected from the dreaded E-bombs?

another Civi

Then we'll never see a British unmanned MBT, since BT is throttling everything (The operators might be downloading illegal porn, while shooting stuff)

[The_Chieftain]

Please don't break him, guys!

[sreel08]

A big welcome I would also like to know what you, The_Challenger, think about the future of Tanks. For example MBT's had a major success in the second and last Gulf War as well - though in the later fights with rebels/terrorists it did not seem that useful. As the world seems to move away from big field battles to commando/guerilla tactics with the named better and better anti tank weapons... Oh well, huge topic. Though I would still like to read what you think about the future of warfare, especially about tanks

[tigerstreak]

The_Challenger, on 03 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Hi,

I personally think its pretty accurate, this era of tanks lacked hydro-gas suspension or the Gun stabilization systems that we now see on Tanks such as Challenger 2 and the M1A2. Many years ago I had an amazing chat with a man who had been a Cromwell Gunner and as he said "Skill, practice and luck " were all a good gunner required.

hope you get an input into the british trees

[tigerstreak]

Chuffy, on 03 May 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

I note from the introduction you spent a lot of time in the engine compartment. I always wondered, for all the Tanks and Crews there must be a certain amount of maintenance backup as well with recovery vehicles and what not.

How much maintenance is done by the crews themselves (I'm guessing you'll say a lot!) and how much is done by dedicated repair crews? And for all the tanks fielded, how much maintenance support (mechanics, recovery vehicles, transporters etc) is there?

minor servicing, helping with replacing tracks, going into the boggy water to attach the recovery gear to your own tank LOL

[bigmantr]

Is it realistic to be damaged from the hatch ?
Because in wot your tank can blow up by just taking shots from the commander's hatch on the top of the turret.

[The_Chieftain]

bigmantr, on 04 May 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Is it realistic to be damaged from the hatch ?
Because in wot your tank can blow up by just taking shots from the commander's hatch on the top of the turret.

That's easy enough.

http://www.apachecli...b97c08ce4f4.jpg

http://www.mod.uk/NR...er2_25mar03.pdf

"The round detonated on the commander's hatch causing high velocity fragments to enter the turret, setting it on fire and causing an explosion and the subsequent destruction of the tank"

Quote

hope you get an input into the british trees

He will.

Edited by The_Chieftain, 04 May 2012 - 07:41 AM.

[The_Challenger]

bigmantr, on 03 May 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Hello
I want to ask some questions:
First I want to know if you trained in shooting the Capulet of a tank? Because I find it unrealistic to destroy an entire tank by just shooting at its some metal door all away from the hull.
Second I want to know if the accuracy in game is realistic? I know Tiger tanks managed to shoot down t34s from more then 3000 m , but In game you cant shoot a big tank at 500+ M .
Thank you

Hi,

Not sure I really understand what you mean by "Capulet" so I'm guessing Cupola ? if so no your not taught to engage there. The golden rule for laying on to the Target is "The centre of the observed mass" so whatever is visable in your sight lay on the centre. As for accuracy there are so many variables in ballistics ( drift/dispersion/fling/ambient temperature and so on ) it would be extremely hard (verging on impossible) for any game to replicate perfectly (therefore view range is utilized). In the example of the Tiger 1 in service, the range scale was graduated at 100m intervals up to 3000m for APCR Rds and 6000m for HE.

There are battlefield reports though of the Tiger engaging at greater ranges !

In the case of modern warfare and taking CR2 as an example if you could see the target (quite a distance in the Desert)  then engagement was viable- especially using DU Rounds.

Hope this helps