Jump to content

Nerdwing

Members
  • Content Count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nerdwing

  1. GET 'EM!!! I think it was due to the external APU catching fire after being hit or some such?
  2. Is the exact margin a no-go due to OPSEC? Its hard as hell to find the exact stats on the GEN II TIS setup!
  3. Maybe the CATHERINE-FC was an upgrade because the T-80UM's thermals were very bad? https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/catherinefc_uk_071005.pdf Anyone have a similar page for the GEN II TIS system the M1A2 uses? Would be interesting to see the numbers to compare em.
  4. If thats an issue, then I cant find anything to justify it being ingame using sources I've seen. It should be mirrored in terms of protection, both at over 950mm KE protection. I'm not doubting the results ingame are happening, I'm questioning whether they should be happening for that particular area being struck Are you sure you arent thinking of the Leopard 2, with its somewhat-notorious weaker right-turret facing?
  5. This I agree with But the slabs on each side are homogenized I thought. The gun/mantlet though, as said, is the Abrams most notorious weakspot.
  6. Think the 90AM can pen the central lower glacis at that range. Not sure about upper, it'd probably be in the partial-penetration area at that range. Issue is this weird weak-point on the M1A2 turret that I'm not really able to find any info about. Both should be a mirrored 950~ish KE protection. Keep in mind that if you just sort of place units facing each other in the map guys, you're not really performing the tests under reasonable conditions They instantly detected each other and quick-draw. Numbers there are a pretty enormous factor. Optics are totally removed from the equation under these circumstances, and should be kept in mind. And 4-5km range probably wont end well for the Abrams. Thats TGM range. Both tanks shells would have lost so much KE that far out that gun-hits wouldnt be reliable, would they? Overall, I'm glad the ERA is working finally at least! Thats good news
  7. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/1/14/M1A2_SEP_frontLOS.jpg What vision equipment do you mean? The stuff on top? Its the same/mirrored on both turret slabs. Both 950.
  8. I think alot of the issue is that there'd be S-300/S-400's going active sporadically, so operating at that altitude wouldnt be feasible for most strikes. Their presence would force altitudes to go much lower, and into the envelope of the shorter range stuff. Hell, in Falcon isnt the standard procedure versus S-300's to fly low-level strike popup strikes with HARM's? If the Grumble (and now the Growler) perform anything IRL like they do in that sim, then I'd sure as hell not want to operate anywhere near where the "<10>" is on my RWR! But without the assumed presence of those systems, I agree totally about the unrealistic vulnerability. Maybe it'd be best to just have an option for the mission maker for "High/Low" ceiling for aircraft, with High being pretty much untouchable and Low being how they are here?
  9. it still seems pretty out-of-place. Is that exact area being hit 20mm of armor? That seems like an enormous design flaw.
  10. I remember in CMSF engaging T-62's during that one "SNAFU" mission (yeah, THAT one ) pumping 25mm into T62 flanks to no avail. Could it be that Autocannons are overperforming across the board?
  11. Maybe he means KE? 540 versus CE is indeed way way too low to be accurate!
  12. NATO used ours as gap-fillers and quick-responders, right? Soviet helo's were more of an assault asset. I dont think they operated independently on the level of that scenario though. Werent they mostly attached directly to the units they'd be supporting?
  13. Chinese magazines also claimed a famous "Kontakt-5 vs 120mm" test that some say was actually mistranslated from Kontakt-5 vs 105mm tests Anyone remember that discussion from tanknet?
  14. Yeah, shooting either of those slabs seems like the worst imaginable spot to aim. I'm surprised if they can pen either turret, weakpoints aside as said. I always thought they were the "Do Not Shoot" points
  15. I hope it can, its pretty damn unfortunate when it happens The Stryker MGS in Chris's stream being the most notable example off the top of my head
  16. The M829A4 is ingame. I wonder how many shots the Quick-Kill is before a reload?
  17. Agreed! Ukraine is about to get even MORE difficult to play versus Russia
  18. TOW seems spoofable in theory given the claims of Shtora etc. Shtora actually seems to have been designed with the intention to counter TOW in particular, possibly. TOW 2 (or whatever the fiber-optic link one is... is it Aero? Mr Kettler would know) should be for all purposes immune to that genre of spoofing. Different manner of guidance and tracking so it couldnt care less about IR flares appearing.
  19. Only the AT-4C has a tandem warhead, so the T-90 sure as heck should have stopped either I"d imagine. Where exactly was the hit in question? A screenshot would be perfect.
  20. It spotting that fast at that close a range seems a bit funky. You'd think that'd kinda be a bit too close to go tank-hunting with ATGM's on a vehicle.
  21. Stingers, for all their flaws, should be pretty damn countermeasures resistant in their latest incarnation. IIRC they have software to compare both the IR and Ultraviolet signatures of the target to prevent spoofing, so even if flares work against the former... the latter doesnt care I imagine newer Russian MANPADS have similar capability.
  22. I'm almost certain the Apache isnt using the Longbow. It just sort of flies around and shoots, while getting shot Agreed on the Krizantema's radar mode though!
×
×
  • Create New...