WolFie90

USA 8.0 - 10.0 is not OP by far

41 minutes ago, T1E6X1 said:

The comparison between the T-80 and M1 were pretty good. They forgot to mention that it is possible to OHK an Abrams from anywhere on the turret front if theyre carrying enough ammunition (say 35 or 40 rounds). The real kicker is while the T-80 performs better than the Abrams, the Abrams has a repair cost somewhere around 3 times higher than the T-80. Totally unfair; there is no way you can justify this.

I think the real joke is that they said the T-80B is better than the Abram's. Perhaps on paper the T-80B is better but in reality it's the opposite, nothing happens in a vacuum like their tests. The reality is that more times than not the rounds from the T-80B will get absorbed by the internal modules of the Abram's while the Abram's can still aim center mass at the driver optic and either kill it outright or cripple it at the very least, and it wont be going anywhere due to the horrible reverse speed. Combining that with the CQC meta we have now just makes the Abram's the better choice in most scenarios as it is able to get the first shot off more reliably and is able to take a hit and keep going unlike the T series where their armor becomes meaningless in close quarters.

 

If we were talking about long range engagements then the T series would most definitely be better

 

Also why would anyone carry that much ammo on the Abram's? It's not practical and very stupid to do similar to carrying ammo in the hull for the 2A4 or Type 90.

Edited by FallenZulu
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, FallenZulu said:

Abram's can still aim center mass at the driver optic and either kill it outright or cripple it at the very least,

Unfortunately the same thing happens when you aim center mass and put the Abrams on the receiving end ^^

Edited by Help_Bot_2000
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, T1E6X1 said:

The comparison between the T-80 and M1 were pretty good.

 

Really? it was truly awful.

 

Mobility test without hull traverse being shown. M'kay.

Gun handling test without bringing up the reload rate difference or even the gun depression difference.... M'kay...

Firepower test that claims a LFP shot on a Soviet MBT isn't going to deal critical damage... LEL

M1 Abrams apparently has an autoloader.

 

Quote

They forgot to mention that it is possible to OHK an Abrams from anywhere on the turret front if theyre carrying enough ammunition (say 35 or 40 rounds).

 

So... not very likely at all, since barely anyone carries that much ammunition.

 

Quote

The real kicker is while the T-80 performs better than the Abrams,

 

Worse*

 

That is, unless your average match is sitting stationary right infront of a T-80B on Advance to the Rhine, blind firing somewhere in the general direction of it's UFP, then yeah, the T-80B will do better.

 

Quote

the Abrams has a repair cost somewhere around 3 times higher than the T-80. Totally unfair; there is no way you can justify this.

 

You can justify it by the winrates and higher SL income the US have.

 

Still, I don't think it should be this high, but that doesn't mean that the better tank with higher SL income shouldn't also have a higher repair cost.

Also, upgraded ammo shouldn't be higher than 500 SL, that goes for all nations.

 

19 hours ago, Help_Bot_2000 said:

Unfortunately the same thing happens when you aim center mass and put the Abrams on the receiving end ^^

 

Except, the M1 is FAR more likely to survive it.

 

That's ignoring all of the other advantages the M1 has over the Soviets by the way.

 

Edited by Necrons31467
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Necrons31467 said:

So... not very likely at all, since barely anyone carries that much ammunition.

I do (45) and I get killed less than one out of 10 games because of the ammo in the turret.

Usually you get hit two or three times before you actually die.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

I do (45) and I get killed less than one out of 10 games because of the ammo in the turret.

 

I know the risk is small, but why take it? :P

 

I don't think I've ever really needed that much ammo, whilst also not having a friendly cap circle nearby.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Necrons31467 said:

I know the risk is small, but why take it? :P

 

I don't think I've ever really needed that much ammo, whilst also not having a friendly cap circle nearby.

Mostly because I shoot a lot at helis and try to stay away from caps as much as possible to flank.

And the amount of times I actually die because of an ammo explosion and not that my crew also got hit is probably less than one in 15-20 games.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

You can justify it by the winrates and higher SL income the US have.

 

What higher SL income? The win rates are good, but not over the top OP. As of now, I have been losing quite a lot in my Abrams, probably 1 victory for 5 defeats. Your argument is stupid. What about the high repair costs of bombers? What about the CL-13A? 80% win rate, German players aren't batting an eye. They use the excuse that allied teams suck and have their low repair cost.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T1E6X1 said:

What higher SL income? The win rates are good, but not over the top OP. As of now, I have been losing quite a lot in my Abrams, probably 1 victory for 5 defeats.

 

Because the teams are now full FotM crowd, and Gaijin is notoriously slow to react.

 

The repair cost has been high from the period in which they were comfortably on the low/mid 70% winrates.

 

Just now, T1E6X1 said:

Your argument is stupid. What about the high repair costs of bombers? What about the CL-13A? 80% win rate, German players aren't batting an eye.

 

I never said anything about bombers or CL-13's.

 

I don't play air RB, so I won't comment on any of that.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I carry around 35 to 40 rounds because the chance that the round won't pen (pretty high) and the amount of rounds required to take out an enemy tank. From the front, shooting a T-Series tank, it will take multiple rounds, 2 at the minimum, 3 or 4 usually. Then for tanks like the Leopard and Type 90, it's around 2 shots to the front unless you hit ammo and many shots from the side.

3 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

The repair cost has been high from the period in which they were comfortably on the low/mid 70% winrates.

There's no way you can justify the high repair cost.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 19/02/2019 at 13:13, Necrons31467 said:

 

I have.

 

 

1) Who said anything about a T-64A?

 

2) What's your source on 380mm for the T-64A's glacis array?

    Designed protection for the T-64A is ''only'' 330mm, and not 380mm, which would roughly be the updated 60-105-50 array.

  Reveal hidden contents

1341292804_DesignedprotectionT-64.thumb.

 

 

Source?

 

 

1) You accuse me of underestimating penetration values of 3BM-32, yet you now claim that Lanz Odermatt is highly accurate, where do you think I got my 3BM-32 penetration values from?

 

2) 3BM-32 is a longrod projectile, many of the Soviet/Russian shells from this period and onwards are now (segmented) longrods.

 

 

1) I never said I limited my selection to vehicles that are in-game.

 

2) T-72 Ural's turret front in well in excess of 450mm, your 295mm figure is quite nonsensical.

  Reveal hidden contents

1566204975_T-72Turret.jpg.c9d58113a0d79b

 

 

3BM-32's penetrator is apparently 380mm in lenght, yet it somehow perforates in excess of 500mm of RHAe?

 

Riiight...

 

 

Source?

 

 

Every book has letters in it.

Not everything with letters in it is a book.

 

http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm 

m774 pen under-performing by some 10-20 in game rn

https://imgur.com/a/SjCiG8D t64A armor is too weak

indeed its only the upgraded 60 105 50 variant that has 380 mm protection (in rha)

 

3bm32 penetration values 

https://i.imgur.com/aFQXzjf.png

(unreliable this one is) https://i.imgur.com/1Npqn2m.png

 

could you then show me what you entered into the calculator in order to get your penetration values

in addition to this the 3bm32 is not a long-rod apfsds but a mono-block apfsds which are not the same thus it wont work in the calculator

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html (source on what 3bm32 is)

the T-72 ural (first production and also most widely exported) has 295mm steel armor on its turret when the T-72A and T-72M1 were introduced these both had the same turrets pictured here from a ukranian tank factory worker "leaking" the turret armor as its technically still confidential but security is extremely lax (i can give you the source of the guy if needed but for now this should do)

https://imgur.com/a/nyG0Yhr

and yeah i was wrong base t72 dosent have 295mm turret armor 

 

3bm32 penetrator length is stated to be 480mm long according to http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html again

penetrator length also does not always mean maximum penetration (although will become a limiting factor at some point)

 

http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/turret_welded.htm

this explains the russian tank armor well

keep in mind T-80BV steel alone is over 400mm los 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html?m=1#t-80bv

this also goes into great depth about the tank

https://warthunder.com/en/news/6051-development-t-80u-making-contact-en

T-80U has been added to the game in addition to kontakt-5 and a new atgm

it is also highly likely we are getting the 3bm42 or 32 while the 3bm46 is HIGHLY unlikely

 

will be interesting to see if we get the T-80U first production or T-80U later production with ceramic armor 

 

also

no need to use quotes to sound smart

 

but i will continue my inspirational quote is 

 

"aMeRiCa sUfFeRs"

Edited by chrkiiler
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm 

m774 pen under-performing by some 10-20 in game rn

 

What?

 

Your ''source'' has three different values for M774 penetration, which one am I supposed to take here?

Also, two of which are different pen values that cite the same origin, wtf is going on there?

 

They can't even agree on an introduction date??

 

Quote

3bm32 penetration values 

https://i.imgur.com/aFQXzjf.png

 

Fofanov doesn't cite his source for the pen values he lists on 3BM-32, also, that page looks like it hasn't been updated in a decade.

 

Quote

could you then show me what you entered into the calculator in order to get your penetration values

 

Rough estimate on DU density.

 

arj.png.997a4cea162d3a7a7490760fbb7e9579

 

Quote

in addition to this the 3bm32 is not a long-rod apfsds

 

3BM-32 has L/D ratio of over 11-1, that's a longrod, though barely, IIRC.

 

Quote

the T-72 ural (first production and also most widely exported) has 295mm steel armor on its turret

 

and yeah i was wrong base t72 dosent have 295mm turret armor 

 

Uhmm... contradict yourself much?

 

Quote

3bm32 penetrator length is stated to be 480mm long according to http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html again

 

That's the entire assembly's lenght, not the penetrator lenght.

 

Quote

no need to use quotes to sound smart

 

???

 

Edited by Necrons31467
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Except, the M1 is FAR more likely to survive it.

 

That's ignoring all of the other advantages the M1 has over the Soviets by the way.

Not from my aim...muhhaaaa

They either get blown apart or so badly damaged they beg me to kill them(so they can comeback an get me in their aircraft) The only real advantage the Abrams has is mobility and that only works in two directions and on that plane of existence a 125mm gun doesn't care how fast an Abrams can go, it'll get there before the abrams does. That's the real issue here, everyone wants to be where the Abrams is, I on the other hand send a shell instead cause its quicker and walking is hard.

Edited by Help_Bot_2000
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

What?

 

Your ''source'' has three different values for M774 penetration, which one am I supposed to take here?

Also, two of which are different pen values that cite the same origin, wtf is going on there?

 

They can't even agree on an introduction date??

 

 

Fofanov doesn't cite his source for the pen values he lists on 3BM-32, also, that page looks like it hasn't been updated in a decade.

 

 

Rough estimate on DU density.

 

arj.png.997a4cea162d3a7a7490760fbb7e9579

 

 

3BM-32 has L/D ratio of over 11-1, that's a longrod, though barely, IIRC.

 

 

Uhmm... contradict yourself much?

 

 

That's the entire assembly's lenght, not the penetrator lenght.

 

 

???

 

source for the m774 includes 3 versions btw 

2 du versions and one tungsten which is why the penetration is different 

the sources are from different books but the du version sits at around 380 and the tungsten very slightly lower

 

the 3bm32 is not a long-rod at all its a mono-block shell yes but not a long-rod and its not referred to as a long-rod and neither does it work with the calculator

for comparison the m829 shell is 616 mm long (penetrator and shell) while being 27mm wide

this shell is apparently 380mm long and 30mm wide its wider but a little over half in lenght and its considered a "LONG ROD" the m774 is 24mm wide and around 300-400mm long (penetrator) and its considered a short rod shell 

 

excuse me what and the 3bm32 is considered long rod WHAT

 

 

i dident contradict myself i admitted i was wrong learn the diffrence

 

give me a proper source for the 3bm32 its penetrator length width and everything else used in the calculation including proof its a blunt nosed penetrator

 

also the 3bm32 is not du its uranium alloy and not depleted uranium alloy as far as im aware

 

also the fafanov cite is accurate what do you mean hasent been updated no need if it is correct

 

 

Edited by chrkiiler
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎21‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 08:22, Loongsheep said:

 

I haven't unlocked the Bradley yet, but from my observation it is actually the best vehicle in that range.

For the br Bradley has, it really is! Careful with 1vs1 BMP fights tho. Tend to lose those.

 

On ‎21‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 13:56, Necrons31467 said:

It's a case of the FotM crowd being comfortably on the US side now,

I would use the term BS here.





How long does it take, to usa tree haters to admit, that they are just complaining about usa, because its fun?

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WolFie90 said:

How long does it take, to usa tree haters to admit, that they are just complaining about usa, because its fun?

 

You'd have a point, if the US hadn't been seal clubbing for around about 6 months straight.

 

Also, there's a difference between being for balance and being against the US.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/02/2019 at 23:03, chrkiiler said:

the penetration of the russian shells also seems to be vastly underestimated 

 

Lol no, they're actually heavily overperforming.

 

The problem lies in how the Soviets vastly overestimated the penetration of their ammunition, while also vastly overestimating the protection of their tanks.

 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SunsetShimmers said:

Lol no, they're actually heavily overperforming.

 

They're correct against RHA.

 

They're overperforming against composites, except, there's not really any data available on tungsten cored ammunition vs composites, so we don't know by how much they're overperforming.

 

Quote

The problem lies in how the Soviets vastly overestimated the penetration of their ammunition, while also vastly overestimating the protection of their tanks.

 

As I said, pen values aren't overestimated against RHA.

 

Armour is all over the place.

 

T-64A, T-62M1 & T-55AM are all underperforming against KE for their glacis arrays.

T-64's, T-72's and T-80's all have underperforming CE protection for their base armour.

T-64B and T-80B glacis arrays are overperforming against KE.

Turret KE values seem to be roughly correct across the board, perhaps the 500mm zone starts a bit too close to the mantlet, dunno for sure.

 

Edited by Necrons31467
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

They're correct against RHA.

 

They're overperforming against composites, except, there's not really any data available on tungsten cored ammunition vs composites, so we don't know by how much they're overperforming.

 

They're overperforming according to the L-O equation, even against RHA.

 

Eg, 3BM9 has been 'fitted' through the longrods calculator to produce penetration that agrees with Soviet sources, by using the most optimistic data possible for the rod, the maximum diameter of 44mm and a 600 BHN hardness (when it was 310 BHN steel).

It should have around 140-150mm at 60 degrees at 10 meters penetration instead of the 182mm it currently has.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

As I said, pen values aren't overestimated against RHA.

 

Armour is all over the place.

 

T-64A, T-62M1 & T-55AM are all underperforming against KE for their glacis arrays.

T-64's, T-72's and T-80's all have underperforming CE protection for their base armour.

 T-64B and T-80B glacis arrays are overperforming against KE.

 Turret KE values seem to be roughly correct across the board, perhaps the 500mm zone starts a bit too close to the mantlet, dunno for sure.



 

When T-64A and T-72A can resist M774, there's something seriously wrong, given that round had no problems penetrating Iraqi T-72s all the way out to 3000 meters range IRL.

Spoiler

X1U2cP5.pngSIVrw07.pnguh2Oc9k.png

 

Edited by SunsetShimmers
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SunsetShimmers said:

When T-64A and T-72A can resist M774, there's something seriously wrong, given that round had no problems penetrating Iraqi T-72s all the way out to 3000 meters range IRL.

The M774 was never fired in Iraq. 

 

By then the M60A1 RISE Passive used by the USMC were using the M833. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Slayer3XD said:

The M774 was never fired in Iraq. 

 

By then the M60A1 RISE Passive used by the USMC were using the M833. 

 

See above edit: they had it available, and tested it against captured T-72s.

 

They refer to it as 'M700 series', but the only other M7XX ammo was M735, and it is fairly unlikely they were using that.

Edited by SunsetShimmers
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, fofanov's data for 3BM32 is highly suspect.

 

See this image:

Spoiler

wm7RmYL.jpg

 

3BM32 is 4th from the left. The 5th and 6th projectiles are 3BM9 and 3BM15 (which have widely cited lengths of 518mm and 548mm).

 

Using 3BM9 length of 518mm, the 3BM15 measures as 545mm (close to 548mm) and 3BM32 as 498mm.

Using 3BM15 length of 548mm, 3BM9 measures as 521mm (close to 518mm) and 3BM32 as 501mm.

Using 3BM32 length of 480mm, 3BM9 measures as 499mm and 3BM15 measures as 525mm.

 

Clearly, 3BM32 is NOT 480mm in length, but approximately 500mm.

 

 

Further, the penetrator cannot be 380x30mm; that produces a volume of 268.61 cm^3 (and that's completely ignoring the bulge in the middle of the projectile). With DU alloy typically having a density of 18.6 grams/cm^3, that is 4996 grams of DU, when the entire projectile is supposed to weigh 4850 grams.

The fins alone weighed 415 grams; the nose cap and tracer probably weighed in at another 200 grams, so the penetrator material can only weigh about 4250 grams if the 4850 gram projectile weight is to be believed.

 

Edited by SunsetShimmers
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SunsetShimmers said:

They're overperforming according to the L-O equation, even against RHA.

 

I'm not referring to 3BM-9 in this case, I'm referring to 3BM-15.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

I'm not referring to 3BM-9 in this case, I'm referring to 3BM-15.

 

If 3BM9 penetrates about 140-150mm at 60 degrees, then 3BM-15 should be about 160-170mm at 60, and 3BM22 about 170-180mm. That puts their ingame penetration reasonably accurate, although I cannot say with any confidence that the range they are penetrating M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 is at all accurate.

 

3BM26 should achieve around 190mm penetration, 3BM29 around 200mm, and 3BM32 around 220-230mm.

 

Those are estimates only, but L-O at least puts an upper limit on 3BM32 for it's supposed maximum penetrator diameter of 34mm with a 380mm length, of about 260mm at 60 degrees at 0 meters.

3BM32 likely penetrated substantially less than that, as it couldn't possibly have had a 380x34mm DU penetrator.

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, terror51247 said:

Bart_zps75bc55b3.jpg

Penetration values for Vant.

Soviet standard.

 

Which is useless, because it couldn't have possibly penetrated that much according to Lanz-Odermatt, even with the most optimistic assumptions about the penetrator.

 

Soviet estimates for both penetration and armor effectiveness are pretty much junk.

 

 

EDIT: note that Russia has continued to use the Soviet methods, leading to further over-estimation, as seen with these Russian estimates for Western APFSDS:

Spoiler

F6ADXT9.png?width=756&height=468

 

Eg, according to Lanz-Odermatt, DM33 should have about 250mm at 60 degrees at 2000 meters range, not 270-280mm.

And M829 should have only 230mm at 60 degrees at 2000 meters range, not 270-280mm.

 

tl:dr version? Soviet and Russian sources consistently overestimate penetration (and armor effectiveness, because they base that off their estimated penetration figures), for both their own equipment and foreign.

 

Edited by SunsetShimmers
  • Confused 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.