Soviet Hero Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 These trials were not real. The website author himself (Fofanov) has cast doubt on them, but he does not update his website. He thought at the time he was receiving the info from a reliable source, but it turns out to have been made up. The Metis (AT-7) partial penetrations of the glacis under v1.00 do seem very suspicious, so I will report. The test source I know, I am here is China, some military magazine in the Chinese also has climbed this test. That Chinese military magazine, the test results attached to the Russian export promotion information in T-90. I think it is the source of the test results. It is a pity, because has in the past few years, the magazine that I now can't find. Or I can scan up.In addition AT-7 really suspicious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) 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? Edited February 11, 2015 by Nerdwing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Not trusting Chinese magazines these days or.. for quite a few years now. Recent clamp down by the commies on the internet and press freedom makes things worse. They were at least somewhat decent in the late 90s and early 2000s. Later than that most of them are shut down by authorities. Now all you can get from them are PLA/Russian military subjects. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Every piece of 'enthusiast' info we find on the net should be taken with two grains of salt. In the past I've spotted a number that was (obviously) mistyped on Wikipedia then the same mistake got repeated on site-after-site-after-site. So multiple sources doesn't mean much unless the other source is obviously independent. Textron company products page is not likely to be recycling info gleaned the from 'World Of Tanks' chat forum. Edited February 11, 2015 by MikeyD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Chinese magazines also claimed a famous "Kontakt-5 vs 120mm" test that some say was actually mistranslated from Kontakt-5 vs 105mm tests They did worse than that once. They took the first paragraph of an article from Janes that amounted to "Soviet hardware was more lethal than we'd though, and 105 MM and early 80's ATGMs would have struggled against T-72s" and then glued it onto erotic fanfiction level "Everything NATO has is unable to damage Russian tanks" (including a "US Army Spokesman" who admitted total impotence in the face of Russian armor). It was pretty hilarious. Every piece of 'enthusiast' info we find on the net should be taken with two grains of salt. In the past I've spotted a number that was (obviously) mistyped on Wikipedia then the same mistake got repeated on site-after-site-after-site. So multiple sources doesn't mean much unless the other source is obviously independent. Textron company products page is not likely to be recycling info gleaned the from 'World Of Tanks' chat forum. This is true, except for facts relating to the M113 GAVIN Airborne War Winner Tactical A+ warfighter battlebox. Edited February 11, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I only trust documentation provided to one Wiley E Coyote by ACME corporation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Is there any way we can get more m113 Gavins in the game? The mortar m113 is awesome btw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Is there any way we can get more m113 Gavins in the game? Serious answer: Shouldn't be. Right now the only "real" M113s left are used by HQ units only (1SG's vehicles mostly), or are the ones kitted out with stretchers as ambulances. There's still the command post and mortar carrier versions, but other than those they're more or less extinct. In a few years they'll all be replaced with similar vehicles based on the Bradley. Also please never call it the Gavin again. Sparky Answer: The M113 ULTRA GAVIN III will be the only surviving combat vehicle from the collection of WHEELED DEATH TRAPS and ARMY BIG DOLLAR WASTE TANK. All US Army ground systems, personnel, and buildings will be replaced by GAVIN series of vehicles, mounting ULTIMATE WARRIOR GAVIN SKY-SOLDIER men, with dual SKS and bikes for SILENT RAPID TRANSPORT on ALL TERRAIN. USAF will also be replaced by flying Gavins, and Navy will be replaced once GAVIN based SLBMs have matured enough. All will be GAVIN. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) 540 mm against heat for upper Hull glacis ? That's very weak and if the numbers you dug up for the other russian tanks are as mistaken as this one, no wonder they are so easy to kill. Where did you get this data? Edited February 12, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Maybe he means KE? 540 versus CE is indeed way way too low to be accurate! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) 540 mm against heat for upper Hull glacis ? That's very weak and if the numbers you dug up for the other russian tanks are as mistaken as this one, no wonder they are so easy to kill. Where did you get this data? The data of 540MM, Vanir Ausf B is given, His data from AKD.please see the below his reply: Vanir Ausf B Senior Member Members 6,206 posts LocationIn the middle of a desert in SW Wyoming, USA Posted 10 February 2015 - 05:45 PM Soviet Hero, please test the T-90 against AT-7 and let us know the results. The numbers AKD dug up suggest HEAT resistance of 540mm for the T-90 upper hull. The AT-5a penetrates 600mm so I don't see a problem there. Edited February 12, 2015 by Soviet Hero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Hero Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) In addition, I in the game repeatedly tested did confirm that, in CMBS T-90's upper front hull could not stop the armor thickness of about 600MM HEAT. Therefore, at present in the CMBS T-90's upper front hull for HEAT protection must be below 600mm. My these tests are done in the absence of ERA do, apparently, in CMBS T-90's upper front hull armor on the HEAT protection ability below 600mm. Edited February 12, 2015 by Soviet Hero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Serious answer: Shouldn't be. Right now the only "real" M113s left are used by HQ units only (1SG's vehicles mostly), or are the ones kitted out with stretchers as ambulances. There's still the command post and mortar carrier versions, but other than those they're more or less extinct. In a few years they'll all be replaced with similar vehicles based on the Bradley. Also please never call it the Gavin again. Sparky Answer: The M113 ULTRA GAVIN III will be the only surviving combat vehicle from the collection of WHEELED DEATH TRAPS and ARMY BIG DOLLAR WASTE TANK. All US Army ground systems, personnel, and buildings will be replaced by GAVIN series of vehicles, mounting ULTIMATE WARRIOR GAVIN SKY-SOLDIER men, with dual SKS and bikes for SILENT RAPID TRANSPORT on ALL TERRAIN. USAF will also be replaced by flying Gavins, and Navy will be replaced once GAVIN based SLBMs have matured enough. All will be GAVIN. My tongue was firmly in cheek. That thing the brits use or used is a lot like it though maybe we'll see more of them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) 540 mm against heat for upper Hull glacis ? That's very weak and if the numbers you dug up for the other russian tanks are as mistaken as this one, no wonder they are so easy to kill. Where did you get this data?So on one hand you say we should subtract 200mm for Kontakt-5 from Steel Beasts estimate to arrive at true base armor protection because Fofanov's estimate for Kontakt-5 vs. KE is +200m, but then you say Fofanov's estimate of 540mm v. CE for base glacis armor is crazy data. You should also note that his estimate for added protection against CE for K-5 on the glacis is +400mm. Also, your assertion that the Steel Beasts estimate is the most accurate via some sort of appeal to authority because they develop a professional sim is not very convincing. They are working from the same data the general public has access to and are game developers just like BFC. That said, I do think it is overall a good estimate that generally conforms with other estimates, but any estimate is likely to have errors of at least +/- 50mm and they may be applying a much greater multiplier for K-5 vs. CE. In the absence of knowing what value they are actually using for the glacis, it is not particularly helpful. I suppose someone could ask. We testers don't know what value the glacis has in game. We can only guess based on outcomes. But with conflicting data out there, we cannot run off and report a bug without good supporting information. Edited February 12, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) No you are right for KE protection. But 540mm against KE is noy the same as against CE. It's composite armor so it generally adds 100-130mm for soviet composite against CE . so lets say base armor is more like 640-670mm against CE. Which is not much but should protect against the AT-7 and AT-4C. Edited February 13, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 That is not what is on Fofanov's site. Read it again. He says 540mm vs. CE for base glacis, 510mm vs. KE. Not saying that is right, but that is what is written there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 That is not what is on Fofanov's site. Read it again. He says 540mm vs. CE for base glacis, 510mm vs. KE. Not saying that is right, but that is what is written there. My bad, you are right. He may be right but later versions of the T-90 had their base armor upgraded. His numbers are for the first version in the early nineties. Why is Battlefront not releasing the specs they use for modern stuff ? Its not like they use classified info. It's available for WWII titles. I got the UI mod where all the specs for weapons and armor are indicated on the silhouette. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.