Jump to content
1 hour ago, HoverBacon said:

Meanwhile M1a2 stock can be penetrated everywhere by virtually anything beyond an RPG-7 except in it's turret cheeks

 

huh? And those are almost all Iraqi M1A1's, not even US tanks.

 

1 hour ago, HoverBacon said:

the US Army don't have 3,000 SEPv3 kits, That's all.

 

Yea, not 3000, but the acquisition objective is 2101. 

https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2021/Base Budget/Procurement/WTCV_FY_2021_PB_Procurement_of_Weapons_and_Tracked_Combat_Vehicles.pdf

 

Also, with that chart being used for weight, it is important to note that the weight is in short tons. A M1A2 SEPv3, with NGAP armor in both the turret and hull, with a force protection kit that includes TUSK II and Trophy APS, weighs 72.7 metric tons. Now, I could be wrong but TES weighs anywhere from 73-75 metric tons and has no hard-kill APS, which do actually weigh quite a lot. A more fair comparison is SEPv3 with TUSK II, which weighs 70.5 tons.

So I'm not sure why I've seen some saying the SEPv3 is 80+ tons. A base SEPv3 with no other additions weighs 65.6 tons. Using the MLC to guesstimate your own weight is funny, considering the army definition of MLC: 

"Vehicles are assigned MLC numbers, which represent the loading effects they have on a bridge. The MLC does not represent the actual weight of a vehicle. It represents a combination of factors that include gross weight, axle spacing, weight distribution to the axles, and speed.'

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-34-343/appb.htm

 

Edited by Jackvony
  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jackvony said:

 

huh? And those are almost all Iraqi M1A1's, not even US tanks.

 

 

Yea, not 3000, but the acquisition objective is 2101. 

https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2021/Base Budget/Procurement/WTCV_FY_2021_PB_Procurement_of_Weapons_and_Tracked_Combat_Vehicles.pdf

 

Also, with that chart being used for weight, it is important to note that the weight is in short tons. A M1A2 SEPv3, with NGAP armor in both the turret and hull, with a force protection kit that includes TUSK II and Trophy APS, weighs 72.7 metric tons. Now, I could be wrong but TES weighs anywhere from 73-75 metric tons. So I'm not sure why I've seen some saying the SEPv3 is 80+ tons. A base SEPv3 with no other additions weighs 65.6 tons. Using the MLC to guesstimate your own weight is funny, considering the army definition of MLC: 

"Vehicles are assigned MLC numbers, which represent the loading effects they have on a bridge. The MLC does not represent the actual weight of a vehicle. It represents a combination of factors that include gross weight, axle spacing, weight distribution to the axles, and speed.'

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-34-343/appb.htm

 

I'm not exactly sure what I'm looking for in that video, we don't even know what's hitting them most the time, is it an RPG-7? 29? KORNET? or is it a loose fire extinguisher-rocket with a frag grenade duct taped to it? Believe me I've seen worse, a makeshift trebuchet for catapulting soviet era land mines that only explode if they land face down is one example. It's like scrapheap challenge over there, who knows what they're getting hit by.

 

 However, just because something didn't get knocked out on one occasion doesn't mean it couldn't have, one could probably find a compilation showing the opposite on liveleak or something too. Also it's why the turret cheeks are the most armoured part of the tank, because that's where they mostly get hit as you can see in that video. You can also see instances in that video where they hit the bazooka plates on the side of the hull and it didn't do anything, do you think that was a Konkurs or Kornet? Shaped Charge weapons whilst the best choice for man-portable AT are often unreliable and always have been, especially when used by untrained or even moderately trained militias. If you want to roll around in an M1a1 with bazooka plates thinking you're impermeable to most shaped charge weapons be my guest, I'll stick to 450mm+ of composite side skirts and bar armour and active protection if possible thanks. But the statistics speak for themselves, Iraqi and Saudi Abrams blown up left right and centre, US Abrams have been knocked out on multiple occasions previously too, even from several-previous generation AT weapons. Just because THAT tank survived a hit from THAT attack doesn't cover the 10s of American Abrams, or by now like hundred or so Gulf states losses of Abrams. Most of those losses are due to them being used abysmally by the crew/commanders, but that doesn't change the fact that the tank isn't designed to take hits outside the high frontal arc

 

Whilst I hate using this example as it's not a great one, that Challenger 2 surviving 70 RPG hits as well as several MILAN ATGMs by a national army in one afternoon gives a good indication what the tank can reliably take, when that happens you need to go find a bigger stick.
A compilation of random tanks and assorted explosions, some of which don't even look crewed does not. It is fact that the Abrams without TUSK is a, whilst pretty survivable, quite poorly protected tank. That's why TUSK was developed and why the tank was developed with modularity in mind in the first place. Don't get me wrong, Stock m1a2 is an excellent Tank to tank fighter, it's armoured in the place that matters for that and it's firepower is excellent nowadays but without TUSK it suffers a lot against non direct firing-vehicular threats. As I've said before, it didn't even get an effective anti infantry round until after the Iraq war as before the latest programmable rounds, HEAT alone, without HE, HEFI or HESH was grossly insufficient.

  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Believe me I've seen worse, a makeshift trebuchet for catapulting soviet era land mines that only explode if they land face down is one example. It's like scrapheap challenge over there, who knows what they're getting hit by.

 

Lol you can literally see the RPG-29 launchers in the hands of the insurgents in the videos, as well as the spiral of the ATGMs. The fact that you are actually trying to claim that they are throwing land mines and fire extinguishers at it really shows the bias. 

 

5 minutes ago, HoverBacon said:

Just because THAT tank survived a hit from THAT attack doesn't cover the 10s of American Abrams, or by now like hundred or so Gulf states losses of Abrams.

 

Yes 10 Abrams were knocked out in the Iraq War, but most of that was due to large IEDs, not RPGs or ATGMs. I believe there are only two cases where a crew member was lost to RPG fire. Keep in mind that there were more Abrams in Iraq for much longer. As for a hundred gulf losses, that's just laughable. Saudi's had 20 tanks knocked out and Iraq even with ISIS only had 5 confirmed penetrated by enemy fire, though maybe there were more. But to pretend hundreds were destroyed is just funny. And again, the Challenger 2 has not seen nearly as much combat use. 

 

10 minutes ago, HoverBacon said:

that Challenger 2 surviving 70 RPG hits as well as several MILAN ATGMs by a national army in one afternoon gives a good indication what the tank can reliably take, when that happens you need to go find a bigger stick.

 

Yea, just like the M1A1 tanks without TUSK that took 50 RPG hits or the fact that 70% of the Abrams in Iraq had been hit by enemy fire. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=M1P6jT8_yrgC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=abrams+50+rpg+hits&source=bl&ots=U9wTZA3wOV&sig=ACfU3U3btWUkfOvudck3LSQJYx69BWr9bg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUjrzEze7uAhXNaM0KHbjQBK8Q6AEwE3oECA4QAg#v=onepage&q=abrams 50 rpg hits&f=false

 

16 minutes ago, HoverBacon said:

As I've said before, it didn't even get an effective anti infantry round until after the Iraq war as before the latest programmable rounds, HEAT alone, without HE, HEFI or HESH was grossly insufficient.

 

You know what else is fantastic versus infantry and light armor? A .50 cal machine gun, something the Challenger 2 lacks. But I'm sure you don't think that inhibits its anti-infantry capability. Yes, HEAT is not as good as HESH, but grossly insufficient? Ask the Marines in Fallujah or the soldiers in Ramadi if the fire support of the 120mm was grossly insufficient. 

 

The TES package does provide outstanding protection against medium AT fire, but I don't know why you seem to want to pretend that the M1A2 is paper. In combat, the Challenger 2 took Milan missiles to the turret face and RPG-7s. I've shown that we have footage of M1A1's surviving the same thing at least, but yet you claim those weren't real ATGMs and all the warheads failed or were HE warheads. But I'm sure you think everything that hit the Chally 2 was fully functioning and capable. Your bias is clear, which is fine but don't pretend everyone else is pushing the evidence here. 

 

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jackvony said:

 

Lol you can literally see the RPG-29 launchers in the hands of the insurgents in the videos, as well as the spiral of the ATGMs. The fact that you are actually trying to claim that they are throwing land mines and fire extinguishers at it really shows the bias. 

 

 

Yes 10 Abrams were knocked out in the Iraq War, but most of that was due to large IEDs, not RPGs or ATGMs. I believe there are only two cases where a crew member was lost to RPG fire. Keep in mind that there were more Abrams in Iraq for much longer. As for a hundred gulf losses, that's just laughable. Saudi's had 20 tanks knocked out and Iraq even with ISIS only had 5 confirmed penetrated by enemy fire, though maybe there were more. But to pretend hundreds were destroyed is just funny. And again, the Challenger 2 has not seen nearly as much combat use. 

 

 

Yea, just like the M1A1 tanks without TUSK that took 50 RPG hits or the fact that 70% of the Abrams in Iraq had been hit by enemy fire. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=M1P6jT8_yrgC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=abrams+50+rpg+hits&source=bl&ots=U9wTZA3wOV&sig=ACfU3U3btWUkfOvudck3LSQJYx69BWr9bg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUjrzEze7uAhXNaM0KHbjQBK8Q6AEwE3oECA4QAg#v=onepage&q=abrams 50 rpg hits&f=false

 

 

You know what else is fantastic versus infantry and light armor? A .50 cal machine gun, something the Challenger 2 lacks. But I'm sure you don't think that inhibits its anti-infantry capability. Yes, HEAT is not as good as HESH, but grossly insufficient? Ask the Marines in Fallujah or the soldiers in Ramadi if the fire support of the 120mm was grossly insufficient. 

 

The TES package does provide outstanding protection against medium AT fire, but I don't know why you seem to want to pretend that the M1A2 is paper. In combat, the Challenger 2 took Milan missiles to the turret face and RPG-7s. I've shown that we have footage of M1A1's surviving the same thing at least, but yet you claim those weren't real ATGMs and all the warheads failed or were HE warheads. But I'm sure you think everything that hit the Chally 2 was fully functioning and capable. Your bias is clear, which is fine but don't pretend everyone else is pushing the evidence here. 

 

Wow....you reply to a comment claiming bias and proceed to spout your own whole torrent of it...I cant be bothered to reply to most of what you said because its laughable but a couple of points:
1. hoverbacon makes an anecdotal point about not know what was fired at THAT abrams, at no point he did he say it WAS a fire extinguisher or claim a trebuchet, he merely pointed out that he had seen some bonkers things such as those over there...
2. There were more abrams in Iraq for much longer, yes, but they were also sent into the middle of towns and cities, you know, where tanks shouldnt really go
3. a .50cal isnt needed. The GPMG does exactly the same job and just as efficiently as a 50 against infantry, and light skins we have hesh. he merely pointed out that abrams didnt get a proper anti infantry round and you instantly got rustled by it
4. You have no idea what the TES kit and or cannot do...so to claim it protects against medium AT is a bit questionable. The reason the TES kit has gotten beefier and beefier seems to be to bring the protection across the front and sides to the same standard. Hover also never stated the M1a2 wasn't a good tank, infact he said it was an excellent tank to tank fighter (which is what it was meant to do), but lacking anti personnel, hence the TUSK and various upgrades....exactly the same as challie got TES....TES wasn't needed until a landmine went through the LFP (a vanishingly rare chance in tank on tank)

  • Thanks 1
medal medal

Share this post


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

 

Lol you can literally see the RPG-29 launchers in the hands of the insurgents in the videos, as well as the spiral of the ATGMs. The fact that you are actually trying to claim that they are throwing land mines and fire extinguishers at it really shows the bias. 

 

 

Yes 10 Abrams were knocked out in the Iraq War, but most of that was due to large IEDs, not RPGs or ATGMs. I believe there are only two cases where a crew member was lost to RPG fire. Keep in mind that there were more Abrams in Iraq for much longer. As for a hundred gulf losses, that's just laughable. Saudi's had 20 tanks knocked out and Iraq even with ISIS only had 5 confirmed penetrated by enemy fire, though maybe there were more. But to pretend hundreds were destroyed is just funny. And again, the Challenger 2 has not seen nearly as much combat use. 

 

 

Yea, just like the M1A1 tanks without TUSK that took 50 RPG hits or the fact that 70% of the Abrams in Iraq had been hit by enemy fire. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=M1P6jT8_yrgC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=abrams+50+rpg+hits&source=bl&ots=U9wTZA3wOV&sig=ACfU3U3btWUkfOvudck3LSQJYx69BWr9bg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUjrzEze7uAhXNaM0KHbjQBK8Q6AEwE3oECA4QAg#v=onepage&q=abrams 50 rpg hits&f=false

 

 

You know what else is fantastic versus infantry and light armor? A .50 cal machine gun, something the Challenger 2 lacks. But I'm sure you don't think that inhibits its anti-infantry capability. Yes, HEAT is not as good as HESH, but grossly insufficient? Ask the Marines in Fallujah or the soldiers in Ramadi if the fire support of the 120mm was grossly insufficient. 

 

The TES package does provide outstanding protection against medium AT fire, but I don't know why you seem to want to pretend that the M1A2 is paper. In combat, the Challenger 2 took Milan missiles to the turret face and RPG-7s. I've shown that we have footage of M1A1's surviving the same thing at least, but yet you claim those weren't real ATGMs and all the warheads failed or were HE warheads. But I'm sure you think everything that hit the Chally 2 was fully functioning and capable. Your bias is clear, which is fine but don't pretend everyone else is pushing the evidence here. 

 

Oh dear, I never said they were using catapults in the video sweet christ also the fact that it's wireguided doesn't immediately make it like a Kornet or something, ATGMs have been around for decades and many of the early ones are unreliable, I also did not see a single RPG-29 in that video either, I saw a LAW etc and some ATGMs. I also said most of them are hitting the cheeks which it would survive. You're not actually trying to tell me the bazooka plates on an abrams are sufficient to survive a hit from an ATGM or even an RPG-29 right? Also "Hundreds" is not similar to "like hundred or so", Hundred signifies several hundred, I signified less or more than 100 in a vague figure, it doesn't matter regardless, it's becoming quite a lot was the point AND I gave you the lifeline of poor crews.

Alas tho, it appears I've triggered the "REEEEEEE Cortex" in your brain so anything I say will come across as more Bias I presume because you seemingly can't actually derive what I have said from what I say. (thanks @Mippie for translating into REEEEEEE for our friend here)  I'm not here to argue about which tank is better, that's not what I was talking about, but sure I'll bite this tasty bait, I fancy getting dirty for a change. Perhaps I should bullet point though as clarity seems to be necessary:

  1. I said I don't like using that example as it doesn't prove a lot which means neither does yours, I claimed we know what hit that chally, we don't know what hit those abrams in the video. Also just because they didn't cook off doesn't mean they weren't knocked out, i'm fairly certain a lot of them were already abandoned. We can use the physical data of 450mm+ composite side skirts vs 50mm bazooka plates if you want as well as in general, Dorchester arrays are estimated to perform better than depleted Uranium against HEAT threats whilst slightly inferior to Kinetic threats. The Challenger 2 has these installed virtually all over it, including in the side skirts, Depleted Uranium is in the Cheeks of the M1a2, it isn't in the Hull other than a select few minority HA variants and never the sides etc. Either way I win.


  2. Challenger 2 served the same purpose in Basra as Abrams did in Fallujah, similar combat width, similar exposure, similar opposition, similar situations, Challenger 2 faired better both in combat effectiveness and survivability. How much the tanks saw combat is irrelevant when you have a scenario such as this.

 

 3. Challenger 2 can fit 50 cal machine guns as well as automatic grenade launchers. Also 7.62 GPMG tends to be a more effective anti-personnel weapon than the 50 cal due to the ability carry significantly more rounds. So no, I think it shows the Challenger 2 is even more superior to the Abrams against infantry in ways you didn't even bother to research before you made that point.


  4. I've posted here before an instance where an abrams fired a HEAT round at a Minaret in Fallujah to neutralise a Sniper for the marines, an Australian reporter needed a photo for the press to prove that the Insurgents were using protected buildings as fire positions and said sniper killed a marine protecting the reporter when breaching the minaret because the tank couldn't do it's job effectively. A HESH round would have vaporised the entire minaret. THUS someone has "asked the marines" if it was good enough, I would ask you to ask that marines parents if it was good enough. Perhaps have some respect for them and what they think on that. Research shows respect, not blind patriotism. I suggest you educate yourself on the points you want to make before you go throwing such blind patriotic statements like that lest someone with some actual knowledge of the situation makes an example of you on a public forum... Or afterwards it may seem. Ironic for someone shouting about Bias no?

 

   5. I am not pretending the Abrams is paper, I am telling you that an Abrams can be penetrated by infantry anti tank fire if fired at it's sides or rear or roof without TUSK in ways that the Challenger 2 cannot as without tusk it is inadequately armoured, Likewise Challenger 2 could be if it only went into combat with bazooka plates but it does not. Your DoD know this and as such have uparmoured it for urban combat with TUSK. I am not telling you it is a bad tank, I told you it's an excellent tank and even told you it's strengths. I'm telling you its weaknesses and that when they are not mitigated they get destroyed which we have proof of.

 

Believe me or not, you can learn a lot about a subject you are clearly passionate about on this forum if you listen rather than blindly proliferating rubbish you are not well read on. But this is not an opinion, in this case I am more well read on this topic and I am telling you you are wrong.

I'm more than happy to provide more data for any of my assertions if you would like, can I presume the same of you?

Edited by HoverBacon
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HoverBacon said:

If it's the third time you've said it, it's not because we don't understand you, it's that we don't understand what you're trying to do/why you're trying to do it. You can claim its not unfair, but what you're doing is blatant cherry-picking bias. Even using the reasoning you think you're using. That's why you've upset a bunch of people again. :D

Whilst a default M1a2 may be the most common, because the US have a lot of Abrams, it won't be the most commonly used in combat. Abrams haven't been used in combat with SEPv3 because it wasn't developed until 2017 which was after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so of course we haven't seen SEPv3 in combat and hence we haven't seen many Abrams in full combat kit! Meanwhile, Challenger 2 (2f) was developed in the early 2000s and used in Iraq.

 

Fun fact, from what I can find SEPv3 wasn't in Afghanistan, but even more fun fact, M1a2 wasn't either, they were US Marine M1a1s. Which means neither have been used in combat since Iraq.

Most common =/= to Standard battle configuration. It's all to do with that tanks take time to be retrofitted with the latest upgrades, especially when already deployed and doing all 3,000 of them at the same time is a good way to get invaded with your pants down. I, and I think most would define Standard battle configuration as the standard to meet for combat, not the most common i.e.- there may be tanks in combat that don't meet this standard, such as USMC M1A1s. Panzer IV is a good example of this. When you have a lot of tanks, it take a long time to get them all configured to standard battle configuration. Hence why Panzer IV Gs were still rolling round in 1945 when Ausf J and H etc were the standard for a year by that point and also lower in number than G. And what do you mean TES "It's a must have" if they didn't have it they wouldn't use the tank without it in a time of crisis? The difference is the British army have 227 TES kits because that's a cheap purchase, the US Army don't have 3,000 SEPv3 kits, That's all.

 

In the 80s the most common tank in the British army was Chieftain. Going off your logic that would make the British MBT of the 80s Chieftain because it was the tank we had the most of, rather than Challenger 1 which was the one that was actually used. You could say that in the 1980s the Abrams outclassed chieftain in virtually every way, which would be true, it wouldn't mean anything though because the UK were using Challenger 1.

 

There are 2 outcomes here, either you're wrong because Challenger 2's ground pressure in TES is lower than M1A2 in full combat kit and also lower without TES/SEPv3. OR M1a2 is inferior to Challenger 2 TES and no comparisons can be drawn about ground pressure because M1A2 (in that variant) is 30 years old and the current Challenger 2 package is less than 10 years old, you're cherry picking information to suit your argument. Otherwise you may as well compare M1a2 to Churchill for all I care, it makes a similar amount of sense. The origin long ago of this conversation was about their performance off-road after I referred to Fear_Naught's first hand experience of the offroad performance of Challenger 2 being superior to both Abrams and Leopard 2. In this circumstance none of these tanks would have been in full Combat kit. None of them.

It's not unfair for you to compare Challenger 2 TES to a stock M1a2, you may do as you wish friendo. It is rather silly though if you want us to take your argument seriously considering you're comparing a 1990s tank to a 2010s tank. It would seem silly comparing it back 20 years rather than forward though wouldn't it? lets compare Challenger 1 mk3 to the m48 patton? That's a similar time frame. I may as well go "Ooh ooh look the patton has less ground pressure than Challenger 1!" Yes, of course it does, because it's armour is 20 years newer and 3 times as thick. Likewise Challenger 2 TES has exceptional HEAT protection in a virtually 270 degree arc and exceptional Kinetic protection in 120 degree arc in all places except the lower plate, Meanwhile M1a2 stock can be penetrated everywhere by virtually anything beyond an RPG-7 except in it's turret cheeks. Your logic here seems to be to point out a tank with a lot of armour is heavier than a tank with sod all armour, to which our counter-point would be "Duh.".

Funnily enough there are M1A2C’s in Iraq/Kuwait now. There have been a fair few leaks already.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel the thread is being hijacked by Burgerboos?;)

  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

Anyone else feel the thread is being hijacked by Burgerboos?;)

It's always the same....

Its pretty cyclical, a Burgerboi or wehraboo will come bowling in everytime people try and make points about mobility or armour or gun and derail things for a while

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2021 at 09:01, [email protected] said:

Does the Challengers 2s thermal sleeve camo help with thermals or is that not modeled in?  

 

Would you specify what you mean? The thermal sleeve is the "cloth" wrapped in segments around the gun barrel. It isolates the gun from the ambient temperature, in order to minimize the effect it can have on the gun in regards to expansion and shrinkage of the metal. 

 

The thermal blankes, which you can find on the CR2 named "Megatron" for example, are a way to reduce the thermal signature of the vehicle it covers. The intention is to be less of a white spot in the thermals of your enemies.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DELTACLUSTER said:

 

Would you specify what you mean? The thermal sleeve is the "cloth" wrapped in segments around the gun barrel. It isolates the gun from the ambient temperature, in order to minimize the effect it can have on the gun in regards to expansion and shrinkage of the metal. 

 

The thermal blankes, which you can find on the CR2 named "Megatron" for example, are a way to reduce the thermal signature of the vehicle it covers. The intention is to be less of a white spot in the thermals of your enemies.

I was meaning the blanket over the hull. My apologies. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/02/2021 at 10:35, [email protected] said:

I was meaning the blanket over the hull. My apologies. 

Not modelled in game.

 

Otherwise IRL it does it's thingy probably fine.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mantlet of Challys (both1 and 2) too weak . 200mm steel ? anyone have any idea how many they should be ?

once enemy hit our mantlet ,Com&Gunner die or loader die : (

 

On 12/7/2020 at 9:37 PM, _Fear_Naught_ said:

When carrying out drills correctly loading can be achieved in a 4 sec average by a relatively experienced operator.

 

The hardest part of the annual range packet for the crew as far as the operator is concerned is the OVM/TVM 3 round HESH engagement which has an 18 sec time limit. But that also includes target acquisition and engagement time.

 

The important thing to remember though when averaging load time is to count from the moment the gun fires to the point it is ready to fire again... not the point the subsequent round is fired as this is an engagement/ target acquisition issue and not the loading time.

 

Single piece ammunition is a simpler process to load but it is not faster. When you have to consider the other factors other than actually placing and ramming the round what slows the M1/Leo etc is the amminition protection system i.e the bulkhead door. 

 

Where this whole "CR2 can only fire the first four rounds fast" thing comes from is a complete mystery to me. I get the fact that the turntable charge bin can only hold 4 case charges or 8 bag charges (typically 3 case charges and 2 bag charges) and this is why people assume that the load time will slow after this but that is simply not accurate. All 3 compartments of the hull rear charge bin are easily accessible to the operator with the turret in the frontal 60 degree arc. At least 2 of the compartments (the centre and either side compartment depending on the turret position) are accessible with the turret in the 120 degree frontal arc. The way the charges are stowed allows access to a minimum of 16 KE and 10 CE charges without difficulty before the operator will have to request the turret be repositioned to access other charges during a single target multiple round engagement. Another point is that the operator can easily relocate charges to the turntable bin from the hull rear bin as required which is as simple as opening the lids (starting with the empty bin), lifting and replacing the charges, and closing the lids again. The entire turntable charge bin can be 'rebombed' in seconds (unlike in the game which takes forever).

 

These are all points I will clarify when I finally get around to finishing my post on the ammunition...     

 

     

confused too .

Ah cough "balance" cough :facepalm:

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for mad ingresh skills,
I was wondering if someone who has the experience of making reports in the apropriate to moderators form would like to take on a task to make a proper report addressing one certain issue that could be easily fixed without much of an effort (a few variables in code I take it) from our benevolent developers.
I'm talking about CR2's thermals, correct me if I'm wrong but iirc the 2F variant in the game after installing an additional armor upgrade gets the following apparatuses that are even present on our current visual model:
1. The driver's thermal camera (which in game would mean a 3rd-person thermal mode),
2. The remote control turret complex of which I forgot the name of with a thermal camera as well (even to this day the loader's machine gun is still under control of a commander, yet as this turret complex is independet from TOGS-II me thinks that it's a good enough reason to gib CR2 thermal 'binocs' as all the cool kids out there have).
So is there anyone here who would like to try making this seemingly pointless report in a futile attempt at trying to even slightly improve the situatuion of the most castrated by the devs top tier mbt?

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IIIEPIIIABbIU said:

Sorry for mad ingresh skills,
I was wondering if someone who has the experience of making reports in the apropriate to moderators form would like to take on a task to make a proper report addressing one certain issue that could be easily fixed without much of an effort (a few variables in code I take it) from our benevolent developers.
I'm talking about CR2's thermals, correct me if I'm wrong but iirc the 2F variant in the game after installing an additional armor upgrade gets the following apparatuses that are even present on our current visual model:
1. The driver's thermal camera (which in game would mean a 3rd-person thermal mode),
2. The remote control turret complex of which I forgot the name of with a thermal camera as well (even to this day the loader's machine gun is still under control of a commander, yet as this turret complex is independet from TOGS-II me thinks that it's a good enough reason to gib CR2 thermal 'binocs' as all the cool kids out there have).
So is there anyone here who would like to try making this seemingly pointless report in a futile attempt at trying to even slightly improve the situatuion of the most castrated by the devs top tier mbt?

 

Hey there,

 

Usually I do welcoming of new forum members in the player academy, but since you posted here first; welcome!

When it comes to reports, there are two types;

  1. Historical reports (for when real world evidence suggests that a vehicle has an incorrect implementation in game, for example with the lack of thermals, the wrong armour protection etc.)
  2. Bug reports (for when a vehicle, mechanic etc simply doesn’t work as it should on an engine level. This is things like the exhaust smoke coming out of the wrong place when the exhausts are installed on the Challenger 2)

All reports are moderated and screened and there are specific places to post them. If you do feel like making a report in the future, please be sure to read the rules for the section you’re posting in as they will often be more specific than the general forum rules. The report system is currently being overhauled so reporting right now may not be the most prudent thing to do.

 

The difficulty with your suggestions is that currently we need specific information on what these thermal imagers capabilities will be. With the current reporting system, unless you have  numerical figures  from a reliable first party source  then nothing can/will be changed. This is obviously difficult to nigh on impossible for classified vehicles, hence why the reporting system is being changed. Once the reporting system has been overhauled, we can look into how feasible your suggestions are.

 

On a final note, have you used the first person driver camera that can be bound in the controls? I don’t have access to the game at the moment, so I’m unable to test whether the Challenger 2 variants have driver thermals. I know for example the Stryker MGS has access to thermals for the driver correctly modelled.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Sorry for mad ingresh skills,
I was wondering if someone who has the experience of making reports in the apropriate to moderators form would like to take on a task to make a proper report addressing one certain issue that could be easily fixed without much of an effort (a few variables in code I take it) from our benevolent developers.
I'm talking about CR2's thermals, correct me if I'm wrong but iirc the 2F variant in the game after installing an additional armor upgrade gets the following apparatuses that are even present on our current visual model:
1. The driver's thermal camera (which in game would mean a 3rd-person thermal mode),
2. The remote control turret complex of which I forgot the name of with a thermal camera as well (even to this day the loader's machine gun is still under control of a commander, yet as this turret complex is independet from TOGS-II me thinks that it's a good enough reason to gib CR2 thermal 'binocs' as all the cool kids out there have).
So is there anyone here who would like to try making this seemingly pointless report in a futile attempt at trying to even slightly improve the situatuion of the most castrated by the devs top tier mbt?

 

With the logic of drivers thermal camera, the Stryker MGS would also need to have it in third person and I doubt Gaijins really gonna bother with this for a while.

No 2, gaijin explicitly stated that the MG station does not count as CITV.

3 hours ago, Louise_So_schoen said:

mantlet of Challys (both1 and 2) too weak . 200mm steel ? anyone have any idea how many they should be ?

once enemy hit our mantlet ,Com&Gunner die or loader die : (

 

confused too .

Ah cough "balance" cough :facepalm:

There isn't any information to prove Gaijin wrong on the mantlet. It's all inference. 

Edited by Korvetten
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TheCheshireCat said:

Hey there,

 

Usually I do welcoming of new forum members in the player academy, but since you posted here first; welcome!

When it comes to reports, there are two types;

  1. Historical reports (for when real world evidence suggests that a vehicle has an incorrect implementation in game, for example with the lack of thermals, the wrong armour protection etc.)
  2. Bug reports (for when a vehicle, mechanic etc simply doesn’t work as it should on an engine level. This is things like the exhaust smoke coming out of the wrong place when the exhausts are installed on the Challenger 2)

All reports are moderated and screened and there are specific places to post them. If you do feel like making a report in the future, please be sure to read the rules for the section you’re posting in as they will often be more specific than the general forum rules. The report system is currently being overhauled so reporting right now may not be the most prudent thing to do.

 

The difficulty with your suggestions is that currently we need specific information on what these thermal imagers capabilities will be. With the current reporting system, unless you have  numerical figures  from a reliable first party source  then nothing can/will be changed. This is obviously difficult to nigh on impossible for classified vehicles, hence why the reporting system is being changed. Once the reporting system has been overhauled, we can look into how feasible your suggestions are.

 

On a final note, have you used the first person driver camera that can be bound in the controls? I don’t have access to the game at the moment, so I’m unable to test whether the Challenger 2 variants have driver thermals. I know for example the Stryker MGS has access to thermals for the driver correctly modelled.

I know all about the trials and hardships of making a report on a subject like this that's why I was wondering if someone who has the required data could try making it since i don't recall such a thing being tried before.
And CR2 doesn't have driver's thermals in sim with the mod installed, I checked it.
 

 

15 minutes ago, Korvetten said:

With the logic of drivers thermal camera, the Stryker MGS would also need to have it in third person and I doubt Gaijins really gonna bother with this for a while.

No 2, gaijin explicitly stated that the MG station does not count as CITV.

About the first point: if my memory is still faithful to me then i recall that back in the day (mb at the times of NV and thermals introduction) they (the devs) stated that the 3rd-person vision is decided by the driver's sights. (might have been posted on their russian lang media)
Second: I would 'ppreciate the source of it if it's possible since i've never heard about this.
 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 

About the first point: if my memory is still faithful to me then i recall that back in the day (mb at the times of NV and thermals introduction) they (the devs) stated that the 3rd-person vision is decided by the driver's sights. (might have been posted on their russian lang media)
Second: I would 'ppreciate the source of it if it's possible since i've never heard about this.
 

I think its somewhere within this thread but as far as I remember thats simply what they responded about the RWS having thermals. 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Baron_Tiberius said:

It was reported on the very first dev server and denied as its operated by the loader, not the commander. Obviously this doesn't make a whole lot of sense as commander thermals keep working when your commander is dead in this game, but here we are.

You can actually bind a key to view from the machine gunner station sight. The Machine gun station does have Thermals if you bind it so you could use this as a sort of makeshift CITV if you wanted as it rotates faster than the turret but what's the point tbh.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2021 at 06:59, Shirazz said:

That would make an M1A2 with TUSK 2 lighter than an M1A2 without it, and I do not think even you believe that.

 

Just because the CR2 is used more in its 'TUSK' configuration doesn't mean its equivalent to the baseline M1A2. Its a false equivalence. You have to look at tanks designed to similar protection levels as there will always be theatre dependent flexibility on which packages are used. I would jump on anyone comparing defensive capabilities of the tanks in the same way if they were comparing CR2 TES to M1A2 without TUSK and so would you.

 

Your claim of 66.67 tons for M1A2 with TUSK is ridiculous and its another example of you citing stupid data to support your narrative.

 

image.thumb.png.a5561bc55514822d2f221493

 

Abrams with FP (force protection) kit is 78.92 tons according to US ARMY RDECOM. You are a bright chap, you almost certainly know figures like 66.67 tons are stupid so why bother using them? If its just to troll then fine, but go do it somewhere else please. Realistically, at MLC 95 this may even be the weight of Abrams unloaded. This is significantly heavier than even CR2 TES at MLC 85.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1058858.pdf

 

 

 

Sorry for necro'ing this but just felt like I had to this one justice; Zaloga most likely lists his weight in normal tons so there need to be a conversion done from ST to t and here it is;

 

unknown.png

medal

Share this post


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

image.thumb.png.1dc9f8b16968f65e04917706

 

aFt2BT7.png

q8SDAOM.png

Throwing this in here for perspective.

 

Anyone know of a graph anywhere with all the major engines power levels?

 

Anyone know if WT model engine torque & hp & any other values? Or do they all act like petrol engines with the Power/Torque a function of the RPM?

 

Edited by _Scooter98_
Addition of bottom line
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...