This article is within the scope of the BattleMechs WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleMechs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


I have included some additional info on the CGR-SB variant, including the fact that it is referred to as "Challenger". This information is from the BattleTechnology magazine and thus canonical. However, I could not correctly cite the source of the information because I only have a copy of the page here (April 3028, page 44/45) and not the whole magazine. So if somebody else could fill in the blanks please... Frabby 04:06, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Actually, BattleTechnology isn't strictly canon (kind of a gray area; see:,5372.0.html), but since the variant in question apparently appeared first in the mag, I'd assume that the info is good. --Scaletail 11:12, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
I have found an explicit reference to Stuart Bell, the Hat-in-the-Ring Battalion and the Charger-SB in the german language book about the BT universe, "BattleTech - Die Welt des 31. Jahrhunderts", an officially licensed 2002 WizKids LLC/FanPro product. This may also be "gray" canon, but imho it strongly supports the canonicity of the information. Frabby
(Addendum: Neither source is canon at this time, but the CGR-SB as such appears in a canonical Record Sheets product. It is canon, its backstory which wasn't reproduced in the RS book is apocryphal.) Frabby (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2013 (PDT)

I know this is an old discussion, but after reading the section on the "Challenger" variant, I thought I should comment. It states "[c]onsidering the scarcity of Chargers..." etc. etc. in the section regarding the Challenger subtype being modified itself. According to TRO:3025, third paragraph on p.100, there were more than 1000 Chargers produced, with roughly 500 still in existence at the time of that TRO's publication (and the 'Mech still in production). I didn't want to change the entry, as I've not read the article from BattleTechnology and therefore am not familiar with what was stated there, but the TRO does make me wonder about the stated scarcity of the Charger in that section. GOLFisNOTaSPORT (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2013 (PDT)

Personally, I wouldn't dwell on it. We rarely received precise numbers on how many 'Mechs of a specific class were still in existence at a given time. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2013 (PDT)
No, GOLFisNOTaSPORT is spot-on. This part (written by myself when I was an inexperienced newbie editor here) is nothing but an assumption on the author's part (i.e. me), and clearly doesn't belong here. I'll remove it. Nothing about this is mentioned in any source. Frabby (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2013 (PDT)
Cool. GOLFisNOTaSPORT (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2013 (PDT)

Notable 'Mechs section[edit]

Again, I am somewhat unhappy about the removal of my entry. An individual 'Mech that has a name and an notable (imho) history - being no less than a present from the DC Coordinator - deserves mention. I find this far more relevant than some pointless custom configs that get mentioned (see Templar for what I mean). Frabby 01:52, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

This time I'm going to stick to my edit... for now. First off, the Duke of the Draconis March is more notable than a warrior house leader or a battalion commander. The notable pilots section is intended to be a brief description of the usage of a 'Mech by a famous or important character. That Hanse Davion piloted a Battlemaster is worthy of inclusion. That one of the members of the Kell Hounds command lance pilots a Warhammer is not. That said, the idea was a sort of compromise between myself and CJ. By no means is the discussion closed, so if you believe the guidelines for notability should be changed, reopen the discussion. I make no guarantees that any changes will be made, but neither do I want anybody to feel that their edits are unappreciated or unwelcome. --Scaletail 18:46, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Charger II[edit]

Is there a source for the "Charger II" name? Or for the "This [3K] variant was confirmed to have been deployed on An Ting in the War of 3039" which would be signficant since the 3K doesn't exist until 3049? --Nckestrel (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2021 (EDT)

Not an answer, but identifying the editor who made the change. I'll ping him on Discord. --Cache (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2021 (EDT)
The Charger-II designation is from Heir to the Dragon, chapter 63. I can't find any text, however, that firmly links this designation to the 1A9 or 3K variant. In fact, text from the chapter ("The head's different") and from the following chapter, where the Combine is revealed to be using Hatamoto-kazes on the same battlefield, strongly imply that these are the LRM-totting Charger variants instead.--GreekFire (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2021 (EDT)
Reading the description in Technical Readout: 3050, p. 152, I can see how it was interpreted as the 3K in 3039. "It was the first 'Mech to incorporate recovered technology, giving Davion units a big surprise in the War of 3039." The 1A9 has no recovered technology. The following sentence muddies the water, "Though the present design makes even larger changes than those of the CGR-1A9 model, even the early models were a shock for the Federated Commonwealth MechWarriors." Early models of the 1A9, or early models of the 3K? The first sentence with "recovered technology" could insinuate the latter. Not a hill I'm willing to die on, I'll leave that to someone with more skin in the game.--Cache (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2021 (EDT)