Jump to content
7 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

FCS isn't modelled into the game (at least for now), even on modern tanks.

All you can do is ranging (up to a certain distance depending on the type of rangefinder) and then adjust the sight for the measured range.

You have to take in account lead, elevation and cant manually.

I have noticed however that in the controls menu, there is a button for "lead" so that means they might have plans to add FCS in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing id like to add to this thread Nope.. 

 

is to the m60A3 related. m60A3's Stabilization is worse than the M1's. 

 

Wheras the M1 abrams has a proper stabilization that it can roll about at fast speeds and still hit stuff even on Rugged terrain   Or pass the beer test like the leopard  2, butthe m60A3 not so much.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 according to the  FM 17-12-3   1986 Edition (Tank Combat Tables M60A3)The M60A3 stabilization was was that the stabilization was only suited to firing on the move to a max of 34 km/h  (20 MPH) if the ground was relatively flat, and beyond that suffered horribly. Also shooting on the move on uneven terrain or going over hlls would affect shots substantially more than it would in the M1 abrams.

 

To a larger extent its not really "Inferior" stabilization ssytem  thats an issue. you have to remember in the m60   the cannon was still mounted to the floor of the turret. And was heavily effected by the motion of the tank. In the M1 design the cannon is mounted to the gun mantlet in the turret and that made it free floating, thus working better on the move.

 

Still a big improvement over the AOS addon for the M60A1 which was much more primtive to the point where realistically in actual practice  it only really  kept the gunner sight picure stable  and was ill suited to firing on the move almost entirely, despite the manufactures claim of "fire on the move capability".

 

Ironic that M60A1 Cadillac Gage Stabilization was basically a Cheepo Upgrade, and inferior to the Cadillace Gage Stabilization the Germans had implemented into the Leopard 1A1

 

Also Commander and loader have Emergnecy Stabilization cutoff for instances where breech Hits top of the turret or if Something goes horribly wrong with stabilization causing it to Spin the turret.

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go
  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is probably a little before the timeline of this thread but what would be considered the ultimate version of the Centurion, my guess would be something like the strv 104 or the shot kal

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I have noticed however that in the controls menu, there is a button for "lead" so that means they might have plans to add FCS in the near future.

 

Is that “lead” feature in aircraft controls or tank controls? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

italia has been added starting from "and they don't stop coming", not to mention the altay at the humming part

 

also can someone please get me info on vitiaz apfsds so i can finally talk about ukrainian tanks kthx

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't even bother add add an Italian header for "And then I saw her face, and now I'm a believer" i guess it's not even a dream :crying:

 

2 hours ago, Nope said:

also can someone please get me info on vitiaz apfsds so i can finally talk about ukrainian tanks kthx

 

After recently reading up on some Ukrainian stuff, the UFP choice for the Oplot-M is interesting at best. But hey at least their T-64BM Bulat is now on the level of T-80U :016:

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever consider putting this at the suggestions tab?

 

Also, Tovarish, in contrast to what you wrote in the contributors' section, I often go by the name Zucc_Boii on the interwebs. And I did that way before the Lizard Zucc berg did it.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Did you ever consider putting this at the suggestions tab?

 

Also, Tovarish, in contrast to what you wrote in the contributors' section, I often go by the name Zucc_Boii on the interwebs. And I did that way before the Lizard Zucc berg did it.

 

This isn't a suggestion as much as it is mad ramblings of a random nerd, hence me putting it in the Historical section. I don't even believe it would ever be considered nor executed properly by Gaijin in the first place since the changes required would be too expensive and risky for something the community may not even mind all that much.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure the zucc stole your rights to the title of the zucc. No getting it back unless you're willing to settle it in court. He'll spend millions defending the title of the zucc, and he is aware of the tricks of the trade. It's a losing battle unless you're more informed about the tesseract's laws of physics than he is.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cadianguardian said:

Theoretically you can give Ukraine joint russian-ukrainian Object 477A4 "Belka" .T-64BM is meh though.

 

I already have the Object 477A in there.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cadianguardian said:

But you do not specified which Object 477A because oh boy they are confusing.

 

damn

 

on another note, added ukrainian mbts starting from you lot being irritating beasts of burden

 

also changed some stuff about the t-14 and t-90a

 

2ccb9c09f192.jpg

 

behold, the complete lack of composite

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nope said:

 

damn

 

on another note, added ukrainian mbts starting from you lot being irritating beasts of burden

 

also changed some stuff about the t-14 and t-90a

 

2ccb9c09f192.jpg

 

behold, the complete lack of composite

 

It looks like legos 

 

1cdedbd9c6de.jpg

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2018 at 7:41 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Second, why not expand your list to include other types of vehicles? IFVs and ATGM vehicles have a place in the game.

 

On 3/26/2018 at 8:01 AM, Nope said:

 

Also, lighter vehicles would require a thread entirely dedicated to them, and the criteria would just be strange especially for IFVs. Don't get me wrong, autocannons are meant to take out other IFVs to some extent, but there's many factors. For light tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers, these essentially delete any IFV in existence with the exception of anything following the same armor philosophy as the BMPT or Namer. They are meant to provide supporting fire to light convoys through taking out bunkers and lower end MBTs.  A Centauro for instance would spell death for any IFV out there except the BMPT and Namer, and so vehicle class comparisons are useless. There's equally the infantry to take into account, as part of the IFV role is to drop off infantry in places that they wouldn't reach themselves due to the abundance of small arms fire. That would mean going over the infantry loadout and how much infantry can be carried. And even if the IFV doesn't carry infantry such as the BMPT, it doesn't mean it's a bad IFV given that the BMPT is excellent at suppressing infantry in urban environments with a crapload of RPGs and so would allow weaker IFVs such as the BMP-2 to drop off their troops and even support them without being in serious danger. These light vehicles are so attached to other vehicles and men that talking about them might result in accidentally detailing more units than normal. 

 

What if, instead of arranging them by capability (like this thread), why not just arrange them by year (1960, 1970, 1980, etc.)? Would make ordering them a little easier. Then you could rank them based off their piers within their timeframe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

 

What if, instead of arranging them by capability (like this thread), why not just arrange them by year (1960, 1970, 1980, etc.)? Would make ordering them a little easier. Then you could rank them based off their piers within their timeframe. 

 

You know your boi don't do years

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nope said:

 

normally i'd tell you where the tank is, but in this case part of the adventure is finding where it is

 

I expected it to be low... but not THAT low! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LULZ said:

Japan was like hey look at our worse Leo 2 and the Indians were like hold my beer

Whats wrong with the Type 90?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LULZ said:

Japan was like hey look at our worse Leo 2 and the Indians were like hold my beer

 

Except that the Type 90 is pretty good and can have its biggest weakness solved simply by asking Rheinmetall and waiting a couple of months. There's way more things that needed to be done to get the Arjun even to T-72B standard.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...