BTR
-
Posts
745 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by BTR
-
-
Kommersant wrote that there is a potential they might cut the numbers, meaning this is undecided and might be a lobbying intent to cut costs. In any case, we need to see Bumerang now.
-
Welp, now we're talking. Something. Kinda.
There's a higher (kinda) res picture:
Khlopotov says that it appears that the turret is facing backwards, and that the side armor plates are taken off.
7 roadwheels! Era-long fight has been solved
. -
Following this, looks really interesting.
-
Sorry, yeah, I'll release during this weak. It's end of Q1, meaning I am very busy at work atm.
-
What do you mean next to nothing? Overlords with Gatlings were anti-infantry kings.
-
T-14 is already in Alabino btw, but all spotters attempting to take a picture of it have been shot.
-
Ah, makes sense then.
-
Typical load of 1150 (max 1350) vs 250.
I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly, but:
Su-25SM:
Typical load 1340kg's
Max battle load: 4340kg's
-
P.S.: Any progress on that red star?
Which one do you prefer?
1-
2-
-
Since my Ainets vs Abrams idea seems rather unpromising so far in light of BTDT feedback, I find myself wondering what might happen were we to put a thermobaric warhead on a GLATGM? I know Kriz has a missile with one, but am unaware whether any tests were ever done, by the US or Russia, of a thermobaric warhead equipped ATGM vs a tank or even light armor. Test footage I have seen shows the thermobaric is quite effective vs buildings, but that's hardly useful. It occurs to me the thermobaric warhead could be capable of doing something to a tank mere ordinary explosives blast couldn't: get inside the engine compartment and other openings, say fighting compartment air intakes, then exploding.
Regards,
John Kettler
Thermobaric would make it exceedingly anti-infantry. Currently 9M119F1 fills that role with HE warhead without taking away anti-vehicle role. Video here at the bottom.
-
I've got a 2003 training book (КС СО, БМ и Т ВС РФ 2003) with training reqs listed. Not representative of today's reqs, but still, some actual textbook reference:
That beats my vintage
. -
btw, what are your sources.
Сборник нормативов по боевой подготовке сухопутных войск. Для мотострелковых, танковых, парашютно-десантных, десантно-штурмовых и разведывательных подразделений. Книга 1. Министерство обороны СССР. Воениздат. 1984 г.
In other words, a compendium of military training standards for land army. For motor-rifle, armored, para-dropped, air-mobile and recon formations. Book 1 published by USSR MoD in 1984.
-
The burden of proof is on Zaloga here.
His numbers are quite interesting considering a stationary T-55 was required to eliminate a target in 7 seconds and be able to fire again in 14 seconds and that longest time allowed on one position was 13 seconds by norm. Now if we realize, that popping targets on the move show up for a total of 70~80 seconds and are supposed to be engaged on the move as well, 60 seconds is the least acceptable passing level for any crew in any tank at any distance between 2100—1800 in the least favorable conditions.
-
Question, what's your opinion on those pesky little flags on the side of Urk vehicles? I haven't seen them used IRL, but do they help you in-game?
-
BTR,
And to think I thought the French AMX GCT was a behemoth, likewise the Msta-S! I believe, though that analysts misunderstand Coalition-SV. It's more than a super SPH, it's also Putin's way of increasing military housing, with the added bonus it's rapidly relocatable.
It really isn't that much bigger than Msta...
-
That's a fair point.
-
At this point, so far down the line, I do not think there is that many additional exploitation costs associated with it - there are stocks of spare parts already, and repair factories have been tuned to working with it. Also, it may be said that T-80 is "region-standardized" - it is the prevalent platform in the north-west and far east, with gas turbine offering better exploitation parameters in the cold environment. Therefore, it can be allowed to continue to serve until a better replacement arrives, which is still a few years away (we still have about 800-900 T-72B/BA to go through before turning to T-80BV).
Besides, one additional benefit to keeping T-80 fleet in operation is that it gives additional incentive to keep working on gas turbine engines. It seems that LKZ and Klimov have been quietly tuning GTD-1250 and continuing exploration of prospective GTD-1500, so if Armata's X-diesel does not work out, there would be an alternative.
Comfort does not equate better use, at least to me. Total cost of ownership is an arguable parameter. I think having two platforms (with a slightly outrageous number of modifications), even so far down the line is driving it up, but I have no hard data on that. Just like with T-64 ending service with T-80 introduction, T-80 should have ended service with T-72B3 entering our forces. The only place Turbine might really make a difference might be the arctic, but that is also arguable.
I hope that GDT-1500 never takes off. Not because it's bad tech, but having turbines on tanks is a little like building submarines out of titanium (K-222), something no country could afford.
-
Do not give up on the flying tank just yet.
I personally think it's a shame that their replacement process has ground to a halt. Was it a good tank? Yes, but it isn't relevant anymore with much better options available for the total cost of ownership.
In retrospective, do I think that unified T-80 fleet would be better than a unified T-72 fleet? Perhaps, but we are not there so I'd much rather get rid of a non-standard platform.
-
Long story short: T-80's are out of luck.
-
-
Exactly, I fully anticipate it to remain on T-90 chassis until the end of service of that platform. With Msta/-M being on the same chassis there is just not enough incentive to migrate it over.
-
Well, not quite, but for all interested, these are first proper pictures ever of Coalition-SV mobile artillery system:
-
Ah, Cassad. Love him or hate him he's got some insight. Predicted annexation of Crimea and the breakout of civil wars in Ukraine.
-
I wonder, why M242 armour penetration is better than 2A72. According to wiki fo AP round both have equal muzzle velocity (1.100 m/s). It is quality of rounds only or something else?
I think the M2 has 25mm APFSDS-T in game which does attribute higher penetration.
. 
Armata soon to be in service.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Doesn't seem to have thermal jacket atm though.