Nope

Member
  • Content count

    12,113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
medal

Nope last won the day on February 24 2013

Nope had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,268 Outstanding

4 Followers

About Nope

  • Rank
    ur tenk waifu suks

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

19,462 profile views
  1. Also in the KPz-70 thread that he already visited, and maybe even the Keiler thread that he also visited.
  2. Perhaps I had falsely assumed that a topic that has been beaten to death a month ago if not more would actually sink into people's heads.
  3. The only legitimate source (not originally from a website) that was used as evidence against my claim was an article from Der Spiegel (45/1969), while evidence showing that the KPz-70 did not use and would have not used the 120mm came from Krapke, who was directly involved in the development of both the Keiler and KPz-70 and the Leopard 2. In fact, he was the project head for the Leopard 2 program and thus project head when the Keiler was being developed. The Der Spiegel article in question also never mentioned that the KPz-70 was even planned to use a 120mm of any sort, and the one who used that as a counterargument seems to have misread, for it is mentioned that only the parallel project to the KPz-70 used the 120mm. Now, which West German MBT program was up during the development of the KPz-70? Oh that's right, it's the Keiler. At least the 105mm Tiger II was proposed to have a 105mm and at least the E-100 was apparently proposed to have a 150mm. The KPz-70 having a 120mm did not even reach that stage. At this point, in what way could the Rh 120mm ever be a legit proposal for the KPz-70?
  4. The KPz-70 used a .50 cal instead of a 20mm. Other than that it's mostly manufacturer differences. 3% or less.
  5. The speed of that tank would not allow it to play like a heavy whatsoever. In fact, in the case of the KPz-70, it was intended to operate in some sort of hi-lo mix with Keilers. You know, just like how the F-15 is the expensive BVR machine and the F-16 cleans house after the F-15s. This is nowhere near the same as heavy tank vs medium tank.
  6. I'd even argue that the T-72 Ural would not be able to stop it, but rather a T-80B or T-64BV.
  7. That would require a new plate to cut and due to the angle, welds might be different. The side armor plates would also require to be cut in a different way as well, which might require altering already stressed assembly lines.
  8. Now aircraft I really have no qualms about even if they will stall very fast.
  9. I am aware that the 37mm on the FT was actually decent for its time and that the many variants of FT eventually had good weapons to use against armor.
  10. I still think the tanks that are similar to the Vickers tanks of WWI should not be in-game. The battles would just be far too tedious. Having the many flavors of FTs is not a bad idea though, provided they are armed with weapons that can harm other tanks.
  11. The F-89C doesn't have the massive amount of rockets since the wingtips are different. It could still carry rockets and bombs in theory, but a more conventional amount.
  12. It still boggles my mind nowadays. Why choose a gun that fires an intermediate cartridge with an effective range of around 300m on a tank where any concerns about bulk of the weapon have been greatly diminished? Is it due to the fact that an StG 44 costs far less than an MG 34 or MG 42? Was there a perceived advantage of using 7.92x33 Kurz over the much more common 7.92x57 that was produced even before WWI kicked off? I doubt it was space constraints given that the Panther turret had no issues with the bulk of the MG 34, thus it would make little sense for the Schmalturm to have issues. It does indeed. The similarities do make some people wonder how much of a direct influence the Germans had on the development of the AK-47. However, the StG uses a tilting bolt design like what you'd find on the FAL while the AK-47 uses a rotating bolt, which is a rather standard design for quite a few assault rifles today.
  13. He already knows.
  14. They chillin
  15. Nah, the LoS will remain the exact same. The composite will just be denser overall somehow.
  16. Only hints involve the SEP V3 having superior armor compared to the V2 because of weight simulators on the test vehicle. That's basically it for now.
  17. why of course not zukboi
  18. The part about either the Leopard 2's NERA or the Abrams's BRL-1/2 being specialized in either KE or SC protection is wrong apparently.
  19. The L/44 is still highly competitive in US service, with ammo that can rival DM53/DM63. The L/55 is merely a different flavor for tungsten ammunition.
  20. but memoirs are legit i mean how else would we know that the sherman is a total death trap
  21. Tanks/Vehicles

    No details about the autoloader exists though, not even in design.
  22. The hull? Eh, maybe. The turret? Hell no.
  23. Except that the Leopard 2 would still fire faster and implementing new tanks would be far more difficult as the Leopard 1A6 is meant to take out T-80BVs and the like. And new tanks will be implemented after that, because there is no way anyone would be happy with one side having such a powerful gun while others have to stick with weaponry from the 1960s for the most part. The less time traveling the better, and there is absolutely no need for the 1A6 whatsoever. Should have stopped at the 1A1 with L52 APDS.
  24. Now what would seriously require the use of composite side armor outside of urban areas where some guy with an RPG may have line of sight around the corner or cleverly hidden EFPs? It takes a crapload of composite to stop any large caliber APFSDS already. Fear of ATGMs can be countered by proper recon beforehand in order to know the general direction the enemy will come from. No IFV is gonna go in with the autocannon against MBTs because ATGMs exist. Composite armor is also really expensive as well. Different sizes of composite blocks would be required as well, thus complicating supply lines even further. There's also increased track wear to take into account. And with all that in mind, there's supposed to be valid reasoning for composite armor on the sides outside of risk of EFPs. This is why not many countries adopt composite appliqué and why none have composite side armor. The countries that do adopt it either do not participate in war often if never thus having small armies (France, Germany) or have rather strange military procurement (British MoD ladies and gents).
  25. Yeah, and the MBT-70 totally doesn't have composite armor. It's not like it has aluminum inserts plus fiberglass.
  26. 115mm BM-4 and BM-3 are weaker or comparable to L28 APDS. Steel APFSDS has different slope and ballistic coefficients relative to BM-3 APFSDS (small tungsten core at the tip, thus making it more like APCR/HVAP in dart form), which in turn does not act like M735 APFSDS and its icicle shaped penetrator that takes up the majority of the penetrator's volume, which in turn does not act like monobloc APFSDS where nearly the entire rod is dense metal. This is without accounting for the simple fact that the 120mm smoothbore is simply a much higher pressure gun than the 115mm smoothbore.
  27. Where would they store the vodka? I know the storage containers would most likely be the place, but it would be best if they had vodka close to them just in case. Btw, would the TV screen layout be similar to the Object 490? I know it was planned to have multiple screens as well, but would they be arranged in this particular layout?
  28. Another problem with the Merkava is that its UFP LoS is also not that good either. It probably has lower effective armor in terms of stopping rounds entirely and has a bad ammo rack location in terms of safety (not isolated from the crew), but compensates with one of the best turret frontal arcs out of any MBT design as well as the ability to resupply ammunition while completely hulldown. In other MBTs one would have to go on top of the turret to resupply, but resupplying a hulldown Merkava can be done while completely hidden behind the tank. Honestly though, this is one incredibly well-protected turret for defense. The bustle area is still RHA, but it doesn't have ammo there even if a hit there will prevent the crew from communicating with other Merkavas. The Abrams for instance only has 400mm LoS on the turret side, but it covers the entire side. The CR series and Leopard 2 both have a similar layout compared to the Merkava, but the composite side armor is thinner. If there's one part of the Merkava that's very well-armored, it would be the turret.
  29. Perhaps it's NERA then. I sometimes confuse the two.
  30. And strangely enough the turret it more homogeneously armored than the Leclerc. Goddamn that gun mantlet is garbage. Most gun mantlets in modern MBTs are around 300-500mm thick for NATO tanks and 250mm for anything based off the T-64 and T-72. 860mm LoS or so with the actual inserts being 800mm thick, not 1000mm. 1000mm is an Armor Basics value, and that has been proven false especially on the Leopard 2. Because of Lakowski's measurement mistakes, he could only find that the composite is 2/3rds aluminum, while Krapke stated that steel of varying hardness and non-metals were primarily used. Between Lakowski's estimates and the fact that Krapke was directly involved in the Leopard 2 program, Krapke's a more reliable source on the matter, thus lower LoS estimates such as what Militarysta has found are more reliable. At least it isn't as bad as the Arjun mk I. india why
  31. Angles don't do jack in modern tank combat besides increase LoS without resorting to such volume increases. The Leopard 2A4's LoS thickness on its UFP is 640mm, but the Abrams has an LoS thickness of maybe 700mm. This does not necessarily mean that the 2A4 has less armor though, as it uses an NxRA array that's different from the Abrams. The turret is still pretty strong frontally and there is some credibility in stating that the turret armor of the 2A5 is the thickest as it's 700mm LoS on top of 860mm LoS. However, the turret bustle area (rear turret section with all the ammo) is only 80mm RHA. The side armor of all modern MBTs is thin, with the thicker ones belonging to Russian MBTs who only have 80mm RHA side armor. For the T-14? Well, someone estimated the hull LoS at around 740mm, which is thicker than on the Abrams. But again, LoS doesn't mean jack without knowing what's in the composite and whether it's better than say, the M1A2 SEP V3 getting a composite upgrade after the T-14 was introduced, thus estimates of Abrams armor protection over at UVZ are just outdated. It would survive RPG-29s obviously, as any composite array can nowadays, even some outdated composite. The reason it is seen as a threat is because MBT side armor is thin and the warhead bypasses ERA. The reason it penetrated a CR 2 is because Challenger MBTs have incredibly bad LFPs, with the CR 1's LFP being rated at 70mm RHA according to Robert Griffin (author of Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank and spoke at Bovington during Operation Think Tank in 2012). Kornets are a different issue, as they probably cannot go through 2nd gen HAP on the M1A2, but Kornet-EMs may only be stopped by 3rd gen HAP. Back to the T-14, there's not enough evidence to clearly say that it has the best hull armor, but there's enough evidence to say that the turret is garbage and that the hardkill APS will not shoot down top attack ATGMs. As for the Leclerc, well, its turret armor is pretty weird. The thickest armor is ok, but it's an inconsistent turret. What makes me mad the most is the thickness of the gun mantlet. Yep, that 40mm plate leads straight to the crew compartment. Modern tank gun mantlets are all pretty weak, but this is just so bad. Hull armor's similar enough to the Leopard 2, but I heard the LFP is as terrible as the CR series of tanks.
  32. Yeah, if you look at the link, the "desert" color is essentially the standard paint scheme every single German tank had out of the factory late war. Some early war tanks had this color (since the pictures there are all black and white): These camos are Nr.45 dunkelbraun. Nr.46 dunkelgrau was this color: This Sdkfz 263 has a very dark grey as you can see. Most German vehicles early war were this color before switching to dark yellow. It's not to say that all German tanks were this color late war, but all new ones were. You'll rarely if never find say, a Tiger II H in dark grey compared to finding them in dark yellow at that point, because the Tiger II H is a late war German tank. Grey early Pz IVs though? Yes. It makes me wonder why all German tanks are perceived as light grey in most media. Is it fade that caused all this?
  33. So it's a 190F with drop tanks or something?
  34. It has composite armor, a gun that is far too strong, and stupid good mobility as well as FCS. It's a tank that would be impossible to balance without completely crapping on the requirements to even change tank values in the game (2 archive sources or one source directly from factory). Implementation of the Leopard 2 is just asking for the game's meta to become totally lopsided.