Jump to content

Nerdwing

Members
  • Posts

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nerdwing

  1. 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  :P

     

    Are you sure you arent thinking of the Leopard 2, with its somewhat-notorious weaker right-turret facing?

  2. No projectile retains its energy forever, even the M829A4.

    On the Abrams turret the gun mantlet and the recessed area beneath it have much lower armor values than the large flat areas to either side. This seems to be characteristic of the turret armor layouts on many modern tanks.

     

    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.

  3. I'm surprised too.

     

    1) Relikt cannot stop A4 sabot, it could degrade its power, but impossible to stop at all. It should give partial (sometimes total) penetration at the first shot, or at least damage or spalling. If it were A3, I would agree with that result, but it is A4.

    2) T90's optics are not that good for +2km range battle, even with thermals. It has only  If that was within 2km, then I would say there was a small room for Russians. However, it is out of 2km. Abrams SEP x50 magnifying MUST have long range advantage.

    3) Russian 2 piece KE shell cannot penetrate M1A2 SEP.

     

    I will do the test by myself soon from 4.5km range.

     

    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 :P  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 :)

  4. The left side of the turret is 920mm .. Right side much less because of vision equipment but around 750mm against KE. The svinets-2 the russians are using in the game can penetrate around 750mm (some say 780mm) at 2000 meters. Do the math. M829A4 penetrates 880mm at 2000 meters. Still 130mm more than the russian rounv because of longer length That still leaves the right turret slab of the M1A2 vulnerable to the russian round at under 1500 meters.

     

    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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...