.png.91b60a5bafb4dcb6f45c202eabcb3ba8.png){kind=avatar}
exsonic01
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by exsonic01
-
-
Oh, and someone told that American penetrator's "neutralizing" factor is not a fact
The new penetrators don't "neutralize" heavy ERA making it a total non-factor. They sacrifice a small percentage of penetration in order to avoid losing a larger amount of penetration due to destabilization.http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12714&page=22
A3 has been designed and upgraded from 1980s to win over ERAs with 1) Fast muzzle velocity + 2) Monoblock pentrators. Even with 1980's solild steel nose, it worked against Russian ERAs. And now we are using DU, instead of steel and tungsten. In addition, A3 has been continuously improved design, it is not a surprise that Kontakt5 will not a match against A3. Since A3 (and A4) uses its super-fast-velocity (1555m/s) as main factor of penetration, it does not need flexibility of sabot. Stabilization? It is super stable when it flies, and does not need to "sacrifice" its speed, and it is already proved over last 2 decades.
A4? I don't even know how good it will be... It is a rumour, but I heard that the designers collaborated with Ukraine manufacturers, testing Nozh and Duplet to design / improve A3 and A4. I think A4 will be pretty awesome.
-
We are talking here about T-90A / T-90SM welded turret. As I already noted, such high LOS armor thickness is only achievable in a very small area of turret and only from 0 deg. But it is the sort of thing that in CM "slug fest" tests where you line up tanks and have them shoot at eachother will result in an occasional failure to penetrate.
I'm tired of this. This is overestimaion. I can't trust this one. I am, and I will, with the Hunnicutt and S Zaloga's expectation, which defined t90 defensive ability as 850mm KE and 1100mm+ (or 1200mm) CE INCLUDING ERA.
Without ERA, 600mm is also quite overestimated value IMO. I almost expect 550mm for front turret without ERA, with cast + TiBDD.
That is also confirmed and double-checked from the leaked data,
During the explanation, he "accidentally" exposed the T90's defense capability to Russian new Czar. Of course this is ERA included data. And please, don't say something like "T90AM is GREATLY upgraded it is far far upgraded than MS ,it will be different" T90's basic design is not that different or upgraded. Wielded turret? That will NOT help this.
I think you're Russian or Pro-Russian European, but whatever, try not to trust on China / Russia source, because they seemed to very generous for their products, while have dual-standard against western technology. Nah, I know you will not listen, so I don't know why I wasted my time here :/
-
" Highway of death" in Ukraine 2017
Actually, it was not a highway but whatever
-
Your assertion that A4 must penetrate or partial penetrate every part of T-90AM armor at any range is unsupportable. There are parts of the T-90 turret array that are 840+mm LOS alone behind the ERA. The new penetrators don't "neutralize" heavy ERA making it a total non-factor. They sacrifice a small percentage of penetration in order to avoid losing a larger amount of penetration due to destabilization. But would you feel safe in a tank where only 20% or less of overall frontal area has any decent chance to stop M829A4?
You do not seem to understand actual configuration of M1A2 hull front. There are fuel tanks behind the front armor array to the sides. You cannot simply add +200-300mm protection to all of hull front. Looks at the Steel Beasts diagram linked above. It is best out there and deemed "close enough" by those who should know.
A small, uncontrolled test like this tends to indicate nothing more than luck is a factor and **** happens. I've test M1A2 v. T-90AM under controlled circumstances many times (and Vanir many times more) and the Abrams comes out ahead by a very strong factor. If anything, the T-90 armor might be slightly underrated currently in the game (probably in specific locations).
My experience (or at least impression based on testing over many builds) for 0 deg. match-up at 1000-2000m:
If either tank hits the other in the weak area around the gun mount and driver's hatch, there will be a penetration. Abrams often survives these penetrations, T-90 not so much.
If T-90 hits Abrams lower front hull, there is strong chance of penetration or partial penetration, but without a lot of retained energy. If Abrams hits T-90 lower front hull, T-90 explodes. Penetrations to the outer side of the upper and lower front hull may very well be considered generally inert as I haven't seem them inflict much damage (i.e. the front armor is penetrated but crew compartment is not.) I'm pretty sure CM considers a penetration into the fuel tank a penetration, whereas the Steel Beasts schematic is only considering penetrations into the crew compartment.
If T-90 hits Abrams upper front hull, there is usually not a penetration unless hitting the drivers hatch area. If Abrams hits the T-90 upper front hull, there is usually a penetration, often with total destruction.
If T-90 hits the main front turret armor array on the Abrams, there is only occasionally a partial penetration (which may be confined to a specific area of the array). If Abrams hits T-90 turret main array there is a good chance of penetration or at least partial penetration, but not with a lot of retained energy.
Roof hits are too complex to summarize.
Lol, Your "assertion" have so many wrong data, that I'm not even bothering with. The most funny part is "T-90's turret only wihout ERA have +850mm" I didn't even read anymore from this part. Are you sure about that? You better to check your reference clearly again, because if that is true, that T-90 is might be made up of XCOM alien materials.
Even the most thickest part of CAST + Ti BDD turret have maximum around 600mm expected. So please don't bring your tank fantasy data to here. 850mm protection without ERA? What a fantasy tank it is. ERA included KE 850 CE 1100+ is the proper one.
-
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.
I never said "forever"
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition-23.html
You can see how A3 contains its power w.r.t travelling distance, because Abrams can shoot ultra fast cannon. Remind that the KE penetration is proportional to the speed, A3 and A4 should be around decent level around 4 km distance.
-
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
1) Like I said, inside the lower hull front of the Abrams, there is DU fuel tank, which work as +200-300mm additional protection. It seems the game didn't considered about that.
2) x3 / x13 / x25 / x50 magnifying power allows M1A2 SEP to start engaging from at least 4km. If the gunner is experienced veteran, then it can be reached to 4.5~5km. M1A2 SEP is designed for that kind of long range out boxing.
3) I can tell about A3 sabot. Based on 2km range, A3 have 800mm penetration, and its 3-parted sabot core is designed to neutralize the reactive armour. Around 4km, penetration power might decrease to 500~600mm, but because A3 can neutralize the ERA, it could be able to at least damage / partial penetrate russian front armor. Now we have A4 in our hands, and it should work against Relikt nicely.
I know "everything" can happens on the battlefield, but test is different thing. I also agree that we cannot say M1A2 must win every single battle, but references should be based on realistic representation. We all use those reference data when we make a battleplans.
-
I'm surprised too. Maybe Lanchester’s law?
1) Relikt cannot stop A4 sabot, it could degrades 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 sabot, I would agree with that result, but it is A4. It is something wrong.
2) T90's optics are not that good for +2km range battle, even with thermals. It has only x2.7 and x16 sight. If that was within 2km, then I would say there was a small room for Russians. However, it was out of 2km. Abrams SEP x50 magnifying MUST have long range advantage in accuracy.
3) Russian 2 piece KE shell cannot penetrate M1A2 SEP. M1A2 SEP have 960mm turret front (I used Steel Beast pro data) 600-700mm lower hull front. For lower hull front, there is DU(Yeah, depleted uranium) fuel tank inside that part, which works as an additional armor itself for lower hull front. M1A2 SEP's armor is greatly underestimated, or Russian 2 pieced KE is overestimated.
Not sure what happened there. I will do the test by myself soon from 4.5km range, like 10vs10 or 12vs12 and 1:1
-
I wasn't even sure they came back after empty/landed. IRL, it's a rapid turnaround on helicopters because they might be doing a touch and go at a FARP something within artillery range of the front line. Fixed wing, they're likely flying all the way back to base and it'll be a hot minute before they get turned around (like even a quick turnaround from my understanding might be 20-30 minutes if there's a spare pilot+flight time)
From my limited experience, the plane will still use missiles on the tanks, bombs on not tanks.
If you're going into a quick battle, they're under the fortifications menu. If you're going into someone's scenario, look for defensive position icons, the TRP will be a little red circle with an X in it. Place them where the enemy is expected, and within a certain distance of the TRP artillery will be super-quick.
Artillery is useful in suppressing suspected MANPADs positions, as they're not really helpful in cover. That said, I feel like the air defense should result in much less kills, and more aborted target runs. In practice most SAM/AAA systems make the approach too dangerous to complete, vs simply murdering anything with wings within LOS.
Wow, thank you for detailed explanations. Those helped me a lot.
-
I searched for the commands like 'Place TRP', but couldn't find. How can I place and use the TRP? (Is that possible? or is the TRP given by the scenario?)
-
Hello
Please give this noob a knowledge and wisdom about the airstrikes.
1) If I command "area" air strike, should I need to spot / observe all enemy units? Or, the planes and choppers will gonna automatically engage the enemy in the area, though spotter can't see them?
I'm currently playing US campaign and it is the mission for joint fire works, but my planes seemed to be quite passive. To me, it looks they only hit units what spotters are seeing. Is this just my bad luck? Manual says direct spotting can affect the accuracy. Is this means that airplanes prefer the spotted targets in the area?
2) How long it takes for airplanes to operational after "empty / landed"?
While Apaches reload and return pretty quickly, it seems my airplane pilots gone for lunch or bathroom after they landed. I looked for the manual but I couldn't find any references regarding this. How long should I need to wait for those bombers to become operational again? Or is that means the end of sortie for that mission?
3) What kind of 'Mission' should be chosen against Tank / Vehicles? (F16)
Apaches seems obvious, since heavy mission brings more Hellfire (is this right?). F15E only have HE bombs, so mission does not matter. F16 however can choice between only bombs or bomb + atgm. For F16, "heavy mission" is for only bombs? or Heavy means atgm + bomb?
4) How can I place and use "TRP"?
Manual says I can use TRP, but didn't tell me how can I place it. I look for all unit's commands, but I couldn't find the command like "set TRP". How can I place the TRP during setup phase or in-game, and how can I use them?
5) How can I beat AA?
Like all other tactical / strategic games, SAMs and AAAs are real PITS, specially for the missions like that "fire work" mission. Whatever I do, I can't escape from losing all Apaches and 1~2 of 3 airplanes given to the mission. There are just too many AAs all over the map. I picked 5AAs (2 Tungu-M + 2 Strela-10M + 1 Igla squad) before I begun airstrike (with arty), but still I saw 4~5 trails from the ground to the air and one of them is Tungu's damn-plane-grinding-cannons. Any hints for this mission? I enjoyed wargame for a long time (from WEE), and I really love Tungu. But, of course, it is the best PITS for US campagin until now.
Thank you
Best,
-
Debaltseve pocket is closed, and rebels took Redkodub as well, the town with some important crossroads near Debaltseve. 8000~10000 UA soldiers and civilians are surrounded. UA tried counter offensive to northern side of pocket line, but failed.
See, how "economic sanctions" works here. Putin will never loose his grip to UA. Too sad for Ukrainians, their nation is now about to be divided like SK and NK.
-
The M829A4 is ingame.
I wonder how many shots the Quick-Kill is before a reload?
Thanks to let me know. Glad that beast is already in the game.
-
Kudos to Battlefront for getting the M829A4 in-game. The Army reports as of April 2014 it will be fielded in 2016. http://www.army.mil/article/124313/Fifth_generation_Army_tank_cartridge_reports_loudly_for_duty/
Nice to see we tell the world about our technological capabilities.
Didn't spend much time researching it but I couldn't find anything recent on Quick Kill. Most things I found were several years old. It's gone through some successful testing in 2012 but then information kind of drops off. My guess would be that it is on the back burner due to budget constraints.
Maybe recent sequester affected on the schedule? I also have no idea. This should be on M1A2 and Bradley in CBMS, instead of Trophy. I know trophy is excellent, already-proved-in-real system, but QK will bring much more protection, based on prototype results from Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
I know those two items are under development IRL, but the game's time line is summer of 2017. Though I'm not sure how the schedules of those two items are, but I think there is a chance that we could see those units in 2017 in front line units.
Quick kill system already proved its ability from middle east during 2008~current with prototypes. Quick kill has the best reaction time against any threats among any other APS systems, and able to defence top attack, and degrade KE threats. M829A4 will be next-gen APFSDS for 120mm smoothbore, can penetrate state-of-art Russian ERA. Initial supplies were already ordered during 2014. (Or, is the game already using M829A4? If it is, even Relikt could not defence the shell as Russians expected. )
I think at least one of the two should be in the game, since it is the year of 2017 in CM-BS world.
-
Relikt - what the T-90AM is equipped with ingame - is supposed to have a 30% degradation on KE shots.
Also Steel Beasts T-90 is not T-90AM, nor is it T-90A. It is T-90S export model. Although it does have the welded turret instead of the early cast one - the optics package currently on the T-90S and T-90A and T-90AM are all derivatives of the Thales Caterina-FC.
I say we wait for the patches.
Oh, I didn't knew that the T90AMs in this game equipped Relikt armor. (Thought it was Kontakt5 in game) Thanks to let me know. If that is the case, I agree that the power of "super sabot" would somehow degraded more or less.
About optics, I thought T90AM and T90S have same system. If not, could you let me know how T90AM differs with source? Thank you very much.
-
There is probably not a lot of point to heavy testing until the first patch comes out. They have already stated there is an ERA problem. There is probably no easy way to sort how much that matters.
Reactive armors are not that helpful against KE shots. Kontakt-5 works nicely against HEAT shots, but can't provide enough protection against modern western APFSDS, such as m829a3. So I think this matters still with ERA bug, in case of tank battles.
-
Within 2km. The closer, the better.
For t90ams or t90s in the game, long range out-boxing style engage against M1A2 sep is just suicide. In real world, Russians T90 has inferior detect / observe ability and accuracy at long range like ~4km. (M1A2 sep has x50 optics, while T90's optics has only x2.7 mode and x12 mode. M1a2 can start engaging from around 4km or more, while T90s hardly could find the target from that range. This is great difference, you can also check that from Steel Beast Pro). T90s are suffering from lack of penetration power from at such long distance. (US m829a3 "super sabot" is truly a beast, while Russian two-pieced APFSDS is not enough for DU frontal armor) I think this game simulated this situation quite accurately.
In my quick battle test, I managed T90s to approach within at least 2km from m1a2s, where the T90's optics is beginning to have same level of accuracy with M1A2's, and AP power increases enough to damage the m1a2's armour. Against m1a2, I think 2km is the maximum distance that you can do something with t90s.
-
You don't need to for passengers. Just click on the passenger unit and give it a movement order to go where you want it to go at the end of vehicle movement. If you want the vehicle crew to dismount and go somewhere, you have to wait for the end of the turn in which vehicle movement has ended, then in the next orders phase, give them a Dismount order.
Michael
Thank you to let me know. But still, that means the complex move stack, including dismount in the middle, would be impossible in a single turn. (Like move -> move -> dismount (and infantry move from here) -> move and shoot -> move) Is this correct?
-
I still don't know how to move and dismount. 'dismount' always deactivated after I command to move. How can I stack up "dismount" at the end of the waypoint?
-
I found that I can control the size (= force adjustment point option) attackers only, while I can't control the defender's option. Are there anyway to modify defender side's force adjustment points?
Thanks
-
Looks like like Pac-Man on speed. Speeeeeeeeed
Check the mods forum for alternative tracers (Vin).
Thanks
But I couldn't find the tracer mod in the CMBS mod forum. Could you give me a link? Thanks -
So close 125mm shell just between sensors and detectors.
That Ukraine tank commander should listen Daft Punk's 'get lucky'
BTW, are there any mods for shells / gun-launching atgm model? To me, they look like Apollo's lightning arrow or something Greek god magics.
-
Hello all
How about giving 'ironman' mode to campaign? (name 'ironman' is coming from XCOM's that ironman opetion)
It means NO SAVE & LOAD during campaign games. You can only save & load before / after each games during any campaigns. In the middle of game, you cannot save and load, and all your decisions will be irreversible. (Or, lets give a chance to save only every 1hr in the middle of the games, just in case you need to leave or go to bed...)
In real world, there is no save and load, and every commanders must be responsible for his commands and directions. I hope this game becoming realistic in "absolute way", so give us chance to pay for our impatience or greediness
I can guarantee that this mode will be painful and somewhat masochistic (like how XCOM ironman mode do), but hey, that is the war in the real world. This will truly give us some chances to see how real commanders think and feel on the field. If someone finished the CM:BS campaign with elite+ difficulty with ironman option and uploads the evidences in the forum, then let's give him (or her) honor in this forum, with distinctive nicknames or badges in the forum profile.
I have been thought this kind of idea from the days of Close Combat, since everyone can finish the campaign with lowest possible casualty with infinite save & load. Of course, one can 'choice' not to play with save & load, but eventually, everyone will gonna use save and load. So I think this might be forced from the game options.
How do you think?
Thank you
Best,
-
I don't have the manual in my hand yet. Can anyone teach me about the major differences for each difficulty levels very briefly?
I'm just trying training-level these days, but I will increase soon. What is the proper choice for a noob like me?
Thank you
Best,
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.
4 T-90AMs against 2 M1A2.. open terrain, 2900-3000 meters, frontal slugfest
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Nozh is having hard time during recent Ukraine conflict, so I agree only with Nozh. Duplet, however, is different. But I also have only limited data about Duplet now, so I can't comment on that anymore.