• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nope last won the day on February 24 2013

Nope had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,159 Outstanding


About Nope

  • Rank
    ur tenk waifu suks

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

19,268 profile views
  1. The Abrams's UFP is just 50mm RHA. The LFP (strongest part of the hull) is only 700mm LoS at best and thus will never reach such a level of KE resistance ever, but more like 500mm or more perhaps. The XM1 also has the 105mm M68, but firing M735 APFSDS. Around 60 mph is a rumor I hear about the Abrams, but it would mostly be around 80 km/h, or 50 mph. Also, the Type 87's composite is pretty damn bad from what I could see. The sloping on the plates on the inside are too bad, and before you mention the Abrams, the plates inside the composite module are not parallel to the composite block itself. They're angled already.
  2. Ridiculous mobility and was supposed to originally stop 115mm APFSDS at less than 800m until the introduction of Burlington exceeded requirements. In particular the CIA rated the KE protection of the M1 Abrams at 400mm for the turret, which has similar LoS compared to the hull composite. Also, by the time the gun was placed on it it was supposed to use M735 APFSDS, which could in theory take out the T-72A frontally. I mean, it's like research is an alien concept nowadays. What's next, we beg the devs to implement the Bulldog and Myrmidon tanks from Battletech to counter the T-72 Ural?
  3. Better yet, what would happen if we introduced them to Bandit Radio?
  4. By 100 goddamn kilometers? You honestly think that none of the Heavy Panzer Battalions, who are also one of the most talked about battalions in the Wehrmacht, didn't notice that one of their rarest and most powerful tanks went missing? Hell, few of these Heavy Panzer Battalions even existed by the time the US went as far as Dessau, and a good portion were even SS battalions. Such an incident would have definitely been in German archives, for Tiger IIs are not cheap and it is standard procedure to note losses, including tanks that go missing. Yet no such evidence was found in German archives. It's more likely that it's yet another case of paranoia making the worst threat appear everywhere in the eyes of mostly anyone.
  5. No, the Lowe's unknowns cannot be found. You're saying all this like it's all a matter of good enough theory that can compensate. That crap just doesn't work with suspension for instance, and various other factors that affect mobility. So far there's a massive lack of information on the chassis of the tank and thus it cannot be modeled remotely accurately. You only believe that it's possible to determine such things because your knowledge of tanks is quite frankly bad. In fact, even goddamn ground clearance hasn't been determined, and this isn't actually one of the hard parts of determining tank mobility at all. It's simply the length of the suspension springs really, and if that hasn't even been determined in the first place due to no prototypes being built nor even blueprints with the spring lengths, how the hell can one even begin to go in further detail about the rest of the tank's mobility? Even the Maus got away because the damn thing was actually built and thus all the factors could be determined. The Tiger II 105 uses the Tiger II hull and is thus easy to model given that it's a matter of accounting for changes in center of gravity and increased weight in general. Please don't use "muh maths" without knowing just how that could even be applied.
  6. tanks/vehicles

    Pretty much this. It isn't a case of heavy tanks being faster, and by definition a heavy tank is meant to be a burden on supply lines. In worst case scenarios the MBT-70 produced in Germany as the KPz-70 would be operating with the cheaper Keilers, but this is more like the hi-lo mix in aircraft today with the F-15/F-16, F-22/F-35A, Su-27/MiG-29, F/A-18E/F/A-18C (to be replaced with F-35C/F/A-18E)... Sure, the F-22, F-15, Su-27 and F/A-18E are heavier than their low counterparts, but nobody calls these planes heavy fighters.
  7. The values are there, but if you're talking about potential disparity in thickness and steel quality, you have a point. Also when it comes to the gun mantlet.
  8. The problem is that not even a margin of error could be deduced. You'd be surprised at the possible disparity between tanks that apparently have the same acceleration. There's even an example where two tanks from the same era had similar power/weight, but one had twice the acceleration.
  9. aircraft/loadouts

    Actually according to Hunnicutt the gun shield is 292mm thick, or 11.5 inches.
  10. That seems to be a number for sanic fast ready rack loading. Might be 6 seconds sustained.
  11. Loza says otherwise, and he fought in both.
  12. By weight class, I meant that unless the top speeds vary to a massive extent in the sense of Tiger I vs Churchill, top speed doesn't matter. Acceleration and smoothness of ride matters more, and these cannot be determined in the Lowe. No, power/weight doesn't mean anything without additional context.
  13. Please tell me you're joking. I mean, I don't necessarily care about top speed, but what kind of proof do you even have for this? On paper the T29 actually wins in terms of acceleration, which means the only way the Lowe can be in any way as fast would require superior suspension settings and track type/tension. Tests were performed with the T29, thus its mobility would have been documented. However, the Lowe never went past blueprint stage despite it being an entirely new chassis. In fact, that's a big reason why I don't want the Lowe here.
  14. But you see, you can't exactly say that the T29 and Lowe have around the same gun mantlet thickness if you don't even know the thickness of the Lowe's gun mantlet. You don't even know how hollow the gun mantlet of the Lowe's turret even is.
  15. Seems to be some rather basic NERA too, and the angle is far flatter than what is seen on say, MBT composite.
  16. Actually, you don't seem to have a source for the gun mantlet's thickness other than exterior measurement, and exterior measurement can easily be wrong because it doesn't take into account other shapes. Also, bell-shaped gun mantlets are not good for increasing armor. All they do is redirect the shell to the actual turret frontal armor as was the case with the T-54, which had this shape for a turret: This is pretty similar to the gun mantlet on the Lowe, although far less pronounced. This is why the Tiger II H still had 180mm RHA for the turret front itself, which is enough to withstand most Allied guns anyway. The T29 on the other hand has a very distinct slab of steel in front as a mantlet. I'd say its mantlet style is closer to the Tiger I than the Lowe. Last I checked, shot traps are definitely a thing in WT.
  17. I wonder what sources state that there's composite armor, for I can't find any such sources. And of course it would be absolutely stupid to add composite armor on that thing. Composite inserts are normally bulky if they are to be used for improving armor instead of simply making it lighter.
  18. tanks/vehicles

    Those armor values are actually outdated.
  19. Whoa man, that's a bit much. Now, what seriously bothers me is the date. This is a modern IFV,which means many people will complain about the lack of modern MBTs, and no one can have that here. Plus it has modern stabilizers that even permit ATGM guidance up to a speed of 20 km/h. Also, while the tank does not have any formal composite, it uses BT-70Sh HHS in the front as well as ABT-102 aluminum. On top of that, it uses fuel tanks as armor exactly like the Merkava mk I, only the fuel tank is designed to be used as armor without a doubt. Now that just complicates armor modeling by a very serious degree. It becomes even worse if the wave breaker were to be extended as well. I'd honestly just stay away from this.
  20. That's an actual SPG in the sense of never being used in direct fire unless circumstances are dire. Not exactly a fit for this game.
  21. events/maps/missions

    Replace typical soundtrack with this then I'm in:
  22. You do know the Vickers mk 1 exists, right? That there has no composite and satisfies that need for speed.
  23. Also to drain Germany's fuel supplies. Gas turbines are neat, but only if fuel is not a problem.
  24. And before anyone asks, yes, the T-72M's name stands for T-72 Modernized.
  25. In the case of the A6M2, one of the reasons is to also maximize range. The A6M2 was one of the longest range aircraft of its day, which is very useful for the Pacific.
  26. But none with Burlington composite that is still classified to this day.
  27. It's not that simple. Explosions due to fuel fires require a very precise air-fuel mixture. Most of the time the fuel will mostly just burn, with danger only approaching when the fire spreads to the ammo or canopy, plus of course the engine will definitely not work properly.
  28. Technological cut off =/= date cutoff. Long as the tanks in terms of their own performance are properly balanced.
  29. Pavlov took his data from American archives you know, and his book is 18 years younger than Hunnicutt's. A lot of the armor layouts seen around the internet for a variety of tanks actually come from his book too. To prove that he is wrong would require a counter that either involves a newer source contradicting him or find the original documents he used and see whether he misinterpreted that. This has been done before when the 30mm IS-3 side skirts were a thing, and it took an actual closeup of an IS-3 to prove him wrong instead of saying "durr rushia r not gud 4 surc". According to who? Hunnicutt sure as hell doesn't mention such figures and the only such figure comes from Wikipedia, and it doesn't even have proper citation there. The 800m figure might come from someone who mistook XM1 armor requirements with MBT-70 armor protection.
  30. >composite turret pls go