Nope

Member
  • Content count

    11,920
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
medal

Nope last won the day on February 24 2013

Nope had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,054 Outstanding

2 Followers

About Nope

  • Rank
    ur tenk waifu suks
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

19,135 profile views
  1. Tbh, it's not really the barrel length compared to cartridge size. The KwK 43 for instance did not penetrate more than the KwK 36 because the barrel was longer, but rather because the shell had significantly more propellant inside. To achieve such an increase in penetration though? That would require a larger casing, and thus an entirely new gun. From what I can tell it would require an increase in muzzle velocity of around 25% to reach such a penetration increase (292mm to 342mm). For a penetration increase like that, this would require 20% or so extra muzzle velocity. That is unless this entire time the guy has been comparing between the Tiger II mit 10.5 cm's current penetration values in-game vs that of possible reality, in which case this can be attributed to a limited understanding of the English language. Though honestly, how exactly the Lowe would be any better than the Tiger II mit 10.5 cm is beyond me. The Lowe is slower, less armored, and its gun isn't more powerful at all. Plus with no test data to work with (huge changes can result from trying to turn a concept into a fully operational prototype), the Lowe just cannot exactly be reasonably modeled in the game. Even if there's complete paper projects out there, one should remember that this was either because there was no choice for the specific line or because Gaijin messed up hard in the past and took so long to realize their mistake that they cannot remove the vehicle without backfiring. And the Ho 229 had glider tests, so at least the aerodynamics are known. The Lowe doesn't even have that.
  2. Even if the E-50 and E-75 just have an engine upgrade at best?
  3. but it r blueprint never built truly spoop incarnate can challenge abrems
  4. tanks/vehicles

    However, it's not exactly fully automated. How the FCS works is by lazing a target and it gets the horizontal mils for you and adjusts the sights for the calculated distance. Maybe not being digital is the wrong term for this compared to full automation.
  5. tanks/vehicles

    No Soviet tank had digital FCS.
  6. tanks/vehicles

    The F-100A isn't really that far a leap in tech and that gets rejected. The big obstacles involve radar and missiles, which are not present on the F-100A last I checked. Between the tanks in-game right now and back then, the big obstacles involve composite armor, FCS, modern suspension and anything that exceeds the L11's APDS for KE. To overcome these obstacles in tanks without overcoming the obstacles in planes (which according to Gaijin is not possible with the current engine) is silly especially considering there's potentially as much complexity for both tanks and planes in terms of technological gap.
  7. tanks/vehicles

    The T-62 is the closest counterpart to the M60A1.
  8. tanks/vehicles

    I can understand what you're saying. Gaijin doesn't want to go into the 70s era because of the speed of the planes and possibly because of the complications of radar, thus 1970s tanks shouldn't be in unless there is no choice.
  9. tanks/vehicles

    For me the 1A1A1 didn't have to be implemented.
  10. tanks/vehicles

    two tanks that shouldn't be here tbh
  11. ground vehicles

    If possible, get books as reference.
  12. If that's from the CIA back then, do know that their statistics are really inaccurate.
  13. tanks/vehicles

    domo arigato mr roboto
  14. learning from the british in north africa huh
  15. tanks/vehicles

    Are you seriously saying that the Abrams is worse than the Chieftain mk 10? How so other than introduction date? Mobility is won by the Abrams, same goes for armor.
  16. The M60A3 with the 105mm would be fine tbh.
  17. You just need magical FCS to have very consistent long range hits without such a high demand in terms of skill.
  18. tanks/vehicles

    That's a coincidence rangefinder though. It's not exactly uncommon.
  19. tanks/vehicles

    Preferably it shouldn't even be in the game.
  20. when stumped, theres the dictionary broham
  21. tanks/vehicles

    Not unless you make that thing have FCS and be on the same BR as a T-72A.
  22. It's unlikely that L26 APFSDS penetrated that much tbh considering you are once again using figures of debatable origin. Still, it's monobloc APFSDS that could very well go through a T-72B without Kontakt-5.
  23. Though the figures for the Leopard 2 I haven't seen before and doesn't seem to have the credibility of the CIA (the latter when it comes to US vehicles).
  24. tanks/vehicles

    What would be the difference other than APFSDS it shouldn't have and FCS that is not implemented? Seriously, DM33 is superior to M111 Hetz, which is a T-72A killer. To have a 1A5 with APFSDS would require the implementation of the T-72A and FCS.
  25. On parity? Do you know how daft you sound? Sure, the British have a 120mm, but it is a rifled gun firing APDS on one of the slowest endgame tanks by a very considerable margin, only really losing out to the Maus. Sure, the T-62 has a smoothbore, but it's a smoothbore so weak it's on the same level as the L7 anyway.
  26. You are behind by 60+ years. The Germans thought about doing that already, but decided it isn't worth the trouble.
  27. Yeah, I found it quite crazy that the people that talk about composite tanks can't even identify a composite array. The shape gave it away tbh. That's one hell of an effective array though.
  28. Misc/Other

    Females are also rare for the countries that did allow women to enlist.
  29. normies reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
  30. Another thing to mention is that the 140mm uses an automatic loader in both the Pz 87-140 and the CATTB. Figures on these are around 8-12 RPM, with 8 RPM probably being the reload speed should ammunition type be changed. That's around the same as the 120mm smoothbore anyway.
  31. Entering the 2000 m/s area is a pretty big difference already, and the 140mm is already considered in a league of its own today, thus presenting another technological gap.
  32. Totally contrasts the T-72s back then, which only had 6 APFSDS rounds or so. Most APFSDS would go to the T-64.
  33. Yeah, I am aware that the HHS made quite the difference.
  34. I'm pretty sure a sizable amount of the shells in NATO loadouts are HEAT-FS.
  35. I thought Kontakt-1 had very little effect on monobloc penetrators.
  36. praise choogle, truth bombardier of the 2nd guards woke division
  37. It's not even a case of just APDS slope coefficients, but entirely different types of ammunition altogether. Should one have APFSDS for instance, that is less affected by composite. Also, I don't know where you get your numbers from, but the Lanz-Odermatt equation gets me 310mm penetration at point-blank for 230 BHN steel, which is already very soft. This is lower than the penetration values of L28 APDS against harder steel and is thus certainly lower than those of L15 APDS. Different shells do act that differently against composite.
  38. changing from one op cannon to an even more op cannon with literal point and shoot regardless of distance wew lad
  39. As I said, all of them. The MBT-70 is on the same level as a T-80.
  40. You seriously do not understand the degree of change here. L15 APDS would struggle with a T-64, but the far lower penetration M111 Hetz goes through a tank superior in armor protection compared to the T-64. That's what I mean by a "very significant extent".
  41. Actually, if the armor has been improved, the military tells people. They just never specify the details. I'd be very careful about that. That seems to fall under NxRA, and just having steel inserts does not mean the armor is ineffective as is the case of the T-72B and possibly T-90 that still never use anything but steel in the hull yet have superior armor compared to the T-72A. Going back to NxRA though, just take a look at the composite you posted with no analysis to speak of. When a penetrator hits these tiles, they expand like ERA and put stress on not only liners, but also monobloc penetrators. This is actually the very principle most composites, especially modern composites seem to operate on. Even if it's not entirely like this, at least part of the composite has NxRA. I'd also like to point out that not once has the Leopard 2's hull armor ever been altered, unless you count a better spall liner as increased protection in the 2A5. The 2AV's main differences were in electronics and the like, with no alteration to the armor. Hell, it also fits Kraupke's definition of the Leopard 2's armor, with him stating the use of steel plates of varying ductility and hardness as well as non-metal and elastic materials, and Kraupke was the project manager of the Leopard 2.
  42. No it wouldn't. Different kinds of KE react differently to a very significant extent. If you're talking about my statement, I never said that. Anyway, why not just get the variant with ERA if resistance to ATGMs is so important?
  43. I already told you: it's Rheinmetall's 105mm smoothbore.
  44. The MBT-70 is superior to all these vehicles though.
  45. There's not that much a difference between the 2A0 and 2A4 other than the turret. And the night vision integrated into EMES-15, but that's on the 2A1. The tank will still be hideously OP against anything and would require an Object 219A for parity. Not relative to other MBTs of the time though.
  46. Please remove that email address from your post. Who knows what the sick twisted people here would send to your inbox.
  47. Not in this case. The Keiler was armed with the 105mm smoothbore or 120mm smoothbore.
  48. Yeah that's actually what it says. SEE? YOU DON'T NEED PANZERCELL FOR EVERYTHING. I AM RELEVANT TOO
  49. The 105mm smoothbore is not that far behind the 120mm smoothbore from what I can tell. Later APFSDS would be serious overkill.
  50. It doesn't work that way. What seems to add to KE resistance is by disturbing the penetrator through heterogeneous environments. An APDS projectile would go through the steel, but with STEF having different physical properties the penetrator is likely to tilt, where it is then met by another steel plate, which is made worse by the damage caused to the penetrator along with the inferior angle the penetrator is at. It also affects APFSDS, but to a lesser degree. This is just my interpretation of how this works though. However, generally a composite plate is inferior against KE compared to RHA of similar volume. However, in the case of the T-64, STEF is less dense, so obviously the composite plate would weigh less than the steel plate by a considerable margin.
  51. I guess I could elaborate on compound angles. Basically, a plate sloped back 68 degrees from vertical with a side angle of 20 degrees will achieve... 1 degree more sloping overall. That will do nothing to increase the armor effectiveness. Combine that with my statement on monobloc penetrators and the T-64 is still butter against M111 Hetz. One thing to note is that APDS is more affected by composite armor than monobloc APFSDS.
  52. That would be silly given how slope coefficients on monobloc APFSDS works as well as how compound angles work. I would not use those armor values first off given where they most likely come from. Nor would I use those penetration values.
  53. It may be too much though considering it's on the same level as M111 Hetz. Should be careful with that.
  54. Even the Keiler and 1A6would be too much for the T-64. The T-64 is by no means a super tank that requires that level of power creep to take out.
  55. Hell no. Even Lakowski himself finds the figures in the SB wiki to be outdated, and he's the one who wrote those values down. Oh, that? Hunnicutt states the 254mm as an equivalent.
  56. Well yeah, because there has to be an equivalent to the 2AV should it be implemented and I distinctly remember someone in this thread suggesting the T-72A: a tank fully inadequate against the 2AV.
  57. M735 is shaped like this: The tungsten core is a distinct icicle shape or something. M111 Hetz is shaped like this: The entire thing is the penetrator, which is the definition of monobloc. This provides M111 with incredible slope coefficients beyond M735's capabilities. For T-72 specs I tend to use this as a starting point: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.my/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html I ignore the armor estimates though, but the armor composition is something I certainly do not ignore. Also, if you look there, you'll notice that the guy actually cites sources: something none of your sources ever did other than Wikipedia. M111 Hetz threatening the T-72A comes from Armor magazine. It truly threatened the T-72A. Perhaps M735 did too according to this article, but M111 was definitely a factor. The 5 layer composite has been used on the T-64BV and T-80B, as the T-72A always had 3 layers and only received the 16mm HHS and nothing else. The T-72B, as stated in the other link I showed you, has many layers of thin RHA with no silica involved. Finally, here's where I found T-72 acceleration figures: http://www.nimda.co.il/image/users/199098/ftp/my_files/t72/T-72.pdf?id=9266537 Now this comes from the Czechs and it's about the T-72M4CZ, which takes 8 seconds to get to 32 km/h. Multiply that by 2 as stated and you get 16 seconds or so, which is slow. The Leopard 2's figures I got from Jane's as stated before (the chart comes from Jane's). https://books.google.com/books?id=kXP6AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA435&lpg=PA435&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false For the FCS? Well there's that T-72 article I showed you and there's SB. While SB's penetration and armor figures are seriously outdated, the way FCS works there is properly represented. Thus you can look at some Leopard 2 firing range videos and compare them to T-72 firing range videos. The Leopard 2's armor though? Well the XM1 armor requirements are in Hunnicutt's book on the Abrams, and the 2AV had to fit all XM1 requirements as it was involved in the XM1 program. There's also this part about the engagement distance of the 125mm against the Leopard 2 in one book about the Leopard 2. Combine that with simply looking up which shells were possibly known by the CIA at the time through date of introduction (though do not use the date of introduction directly as the CIA isn't full of psychics, else the Cold War would have ended earlier), and you get a rough estimate for the armor effectiveness for the specific kind of shell flat on the UFP. I don't know, seems like pretty good sources proving my case that the 2AV is only to face the T-80 and T-64BV with the 105mm and Object 219As if using the 120mm. Yes, I admit there were assumptions made, but not many of them are present and they do not stray far off to the point of conspiracy theory. It certainly makes your sources seem bad. I also would be careful with Below the Turret Ring given that I have talked with the guy multiple times on another forum and his point of view usually lines up decently with mine.
  58. Actually a sound theory is to not let randoms decide on the game's direction. It's not censorship, but rather assigning the right people for the right job. Some of the things the nerds do here is find flawed suggestions and say why they are flawed to begin with. It's through that endless struggle that the content that gets accepted will have a lesser chance of not being total crap. So far, I ain't really struggling when it comes to disproving these modern tank suggestions at all, which only shows how flawed modern tank suggestions are in the first place. Please stop jumping to conclusions. The randoms are to be lured, not catered to. Get them to git gud at the game or at tank knowledge instead of dumbing things down.
  59. Some FCS don't do all the aiming work. Russian FCS in particular, as it only adjusts the reticule and gives out a mil value corresponding to how much lead would be required to hit the target based on the lazing. The gun at that point needs to be aimed manually. That has been one of the biggest weaknesses of Russian tanks during the Cold War.
  60. Wow, you still do not get it do you? Let me hold your hand through this entire process, alright? First is mobility. Now, I have figures for the 2A4's acceleration or perhaps the 2A0, and these tanks have the same engine and the same gearbox and the same tracks and suspension. These tanks would be very similar in mobility at that point given equal weight, and the Leopard 2 has only been getting heavier. At that point the 2AV takes a mere 5 seconds to get to 32 km/h according to Jane's. For the T-72A, well, it is pretty much a T-72 Ural in terms of mobility. Taking what the Czechs have as figures, we get around 16 seconds to 32 km/h from the T-72M, which is also equal to the T-72A in mobility given that everything on the T-72M is the same as the T-72 Ural except the UFP provided the tanks come from the same area (Polish T-72Ms for instance are nowhere near the UVZ T-72M, which if it was fitted with a proper composite turret like they did with the T-72M1 would be pretty much identical in combat effectiveness). The ground clearance of the T-72A is also inferior at the front and the off-road speed is even worse too. In every possible category the T-72A loses completely in mobility. This is expected as NATO MBTs that aren't the CR 1 or CR 2 are seriously quick for a flexible defensive line. Now there's firepower. This includes gun mobility and FCS. The T-72A will have to be limited to 3BM-22 at best. Assuming that, the T-72A loses out entirely the moment the 120mm smoothbore is a thing. Countering the Rh120 demands the introduction of the T-72B, as the T-72A is completely incapable of withstanding even DM13, as the latter penetrates in the high 400mm area at point-blank. 3BM-29 penetrates in the low 400mm area at point-blank after conversion, while 3BM-22 penetrates in the high 300mm area. Not even a contest here, but that would require comparison with armor, which I will get to later. There's also turret traverse, and that there is a massive downside of the T-72A. It's turret traverse is but a mere 18 degrees a second, which is flat out appalling in comparison to the Leopard 2's 40 degrees a second, and not to mention the gun depression. Also, the Leopard 2 has FCS. I cannot stress how much of an enormous difference that makes. It's basically autoaim long as you laze properly. However, the Russians never had such FCS until the T-90 Proriv-2 (includes T-90SM in that package). What happens with Russian FCS is lazing the target, getting the range, the reticule adjusts itself for elevation and displays a number of mils to aim. Should the tank move too fast, the dot used for lazing drifts off from slightly off center and may even disappear from the sights altogether. This is standard on the T-64B, T-80s and T-72B. This is not present on the T-72A, which only has a rangefinder and everything else is done manually, thus severely reducing accuracy at long range. NATO FCS on the other hand is just all about lazing and the gun itself adjusts for lead. That means a NATO gunner could just point, wait, and fire. This can also be done on the move no problem. The EMES-15: FCS used on all Leopard 2 variants including the 2AV, works that way. Then there's armor. Ok, this is where things start becoming hairy. I have already stated the whole thing about even M111 Hetz penetrating the UFP of the T-72A. This shocking revelation made the Russians a bit worried, hence the addition of HHS plates to prematurely shatter the projectile. M735 has worse slope coefficients but has superior penetration against a flat surface. The range of penetration is unknown, though perhaps it is 800-1000m given that the turret was unable to be penetrated. The 2AV conforms to the XM1 armor requirements given that it was made to be a candidate for the US Army's new main battle tank. The requirements state a resistance to 115mm APFSDS from a range of less than 800m and invulnerability to HEAT currently on the battlefield and HEAT to be used in the future. I assumed that the MBT-70 follows very similar armor requirements and that the M1 has similar armor, but the requirements were brought up before Burlington composite armor, which from what I can tell exceeded the requirements, giving 400mm RHSe according to the CIA by some unknown standard. It is likely that the Leopard 2AV equally would have the same armor effectiveness. This places it above the T-72A and makes the latter completely unable to use standoff tactics through increased effective range, and that's with the 105mm. At that point, the T-72A has little chance against the 2AV except through sheer luck or a severe skill gap. Sounds like something deserving of a higher BR to me m80. For proper matchups it would be better if it was the 2AV against the T-64BV or T-80, and that's with the 105mm. With the smoothbore, it's T-72Bs and Object 219As. Your main defense of stating it's a prototype is equally fallacious given that you don't even know how the prototype logic even works. The T-72 chassis has been developed since the late 1960s, while the 2AV has been there since the mid 1970s. Also worth noting is that the T-72 was an attempt at making a cheaper version of an existing tank from the early 1960s, while the Leopard 2 program was aimed at making the most advanced MBT possible without going overboard. Prototypes aimed to be cutting edge rather than seriously cheap tend to end up exceeding the performance of tanks of the respective time period, and to be matched by cutting edge prototypes of the same period or future mass production vehicles. This is why the Object 477A can still give the T-14 a run for its money despite it being several decades older, as the T-14, despite being "new", has most of its tech from the 1980s and before. The other way around does not work, as it would be like trying to turn the disgusting slush that is in your stomach back into its original form of whatever you had for lunch. Yeah, you're definitely still new to this and this is why you made such a suggestion in the first place. There's a lot more you have to learn before the modern tank suggestions you made and might make in the future will ever hold up.
  61. And wouldn't the M60A3 be enough should FCS be implemented?
  62. See, you don't even look at the stats at all. The Leopard 2AV is much faster than the T-72A (T-72 Urals take 16 seconds or so to get to 32 km/h while a Leopard 2 does it in 5 seconds while having superior suspension), has a longer engagement range except when low balling hard on the gun by using M735 on the L7, and even then the FCS is so much better by having a proper FCS in the first place, whereas the T-72A has no FCS.
  63. What kind of sick power creep is this? The 2A4 is on the same level as the T-80U and T-90A. The T-72A is actually worse than the 2AV.
  64. Oh no, that would definitely require the early T-72B because T-72s are pathetically slow in comparison to an M1, especially before the T-72B.
  65. Anything with proper FCS really, which means the Leopard 1A5 firing APDS. And yes, it can flank the T-64 as the latter has a sluggish turret and significantly worse mobility. DM 23 is basically M111 Hetz, and that thing penetrates T-72As. Concerns with the power of such a round is what resulted in the addition of HHS plates on existing T-72As and T-64Bs. The Lanz-Odermatt equation suggests around 330mm vs 230 BHN steel at point-blank, but monobloc penetrators have insanely good slope coefficients. L23 APFSDS is much too strong because of that, as its penetration at point-blank is in the low 400mm area while being a monobloc penetrator. Damn thing can theoretically penetrate T-80Bs without much hassle. because all composite tanks are equal because they are all like composite lol its not like theres more things to consider like fcs and mobility Yeah, that's why I don't particularly like when people suggest composite tanks. They have no clue of the incredible complications that would come from the system and simply suck at finding proper counters to any tank. Oh like this for instance, perfect. The T95 is not a valid counter with the 90mm as it is inferior to the T-64 in effective engagement distance while not having the mobility to counter, nor even the FCS. An M60A3 would counter the T-64 through FCS and I generally accept it as the American counter to the T-64 and T-72 Ural, and if limiting the composite to just one tank it will help not screw it up given that slightly different composite layouts can result in ridiculous changes. The Keiler's armament has already been constantly implied to have too much firepower: enough to make mince meat out of even a T-72A. That thing should face T-80s, as it will be FCS vs armor. The Chieftain mk 5 would get its butt tenderized by the T-64, for even the mk 10 with Stillbrew is an iffy match. The XM1 is so much better in mobility and even in armor and FCS that it will absolutely curbstomp the T-64. That thing faces T-80Bs. The MBT-70 should also face T-80Bs given the power of its gun, the FCS, possibly even better mobility than the XM1s (superior to the Merkava mk 3 in ground clearance, with the Merkava mk 3 having a suspension of practically mythical status). So yeah, stay clear of the composite era. That place is riddled with stuff that Gaijin can mess up, but sadly no one really has the ability to properly give accurate feedback due to a severe deficiency in the required knowledge to corner Gaijin. In fact, even when Gaijin has been totally cornered such as when people showed that the Maus does not have a 220mm cast turret front through multiple sources, they refuse to change out of sheer laziness. They will repeat the same thing except to an even more cunning degree,stating that the sources are just basing it on estimates and that the actual values are classified, yet maintaining the silly double standard by using sources that fit the potentially skewed vision they may have of more modern tanks. It's like trying to fight people that have night vision at night without night vision: absolute suicide as no one will know what's going on or what to do except the guys with the night vision equipment.
  66. So would radio operators also be the punching bag of the rest of the crew? As in, when something goes wrong they blame the radio operator for giggles? People with more relaxed jobs in the army are usually seen with extreme prejudice nowadays, and that attitude seems to have been passed on from generation to generation.
  67. It being too good is exactly the problem here though. That thing only gets to shoot at T-80Bs.
  68. And that guys is one of the only instances where experience wins.
  69. The Leopard 1 doesn't even need APFSDS tbh.
  70. What's with dumb composite tank suggestions nowadays? In fact, this particular suggestion is so badly constructed it uses values from Armored Warfare: a game that takes modern tank combat and takes an enormous dump on the entire concept. Hell, the sources are all websites, with Prado's website being full of outdated values, kampfpanzer.de not listing any proper sources, that Russian website throwing all ounce of credibility away by again not citing sources and perpetrating the KPz-70 120mm smoothbore myth and even the diesel KPz-70 myth and Wikipedia never being considered as a valid source. In the end we end up with yet another garbage suggestion with little regard for what ridiculous complications would come out of the implementation of such a tank.
  71. Weren't the early German tanks known for having AM radios though?
  72. Pretty much. Besides, it doesn't look that big. And this is comparing it to the T-44: a tank that is short.
  73. L28 APDS may not cut it though.
  74. If so you're also crapping on the mobility if you even think about touching the suspension, which is the reason why it may be a bit taller. Also, a smaller powerplant complicates supply lines.
  75. The mk 2 did not receive composite armor at first though. Also, the M68 is not an L7 copy given that its design actually stems from the 105mm T8.
  76. If there's an Rh120 involved then yes.
  77. Oh but this lovely little Reliant Robin can beat a Ferrari F12. Just gotta change literally everything about it.
  78. It's a matter of the main way to make a Panther smaller is by altering the suspension, which is the main reason the Panther even has good mobility. Replace it with something simpler and it might as well be a heavy tank.
  79. You seem to totally miss my point. I was talking about how because of faulty data when the tanks were implemented, and how changing them now is impossible due to how long the tanks were there based on faulty data.
  80. Yeah, that would be it. It seems to be a T-80 variant that hasn't seen production, yet it seems to exist.