2 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

 

Refer to the comment above.  The thing with T90A is that it won't bring real balance compared to 2A5 and it would make litle sense to introduce it this late . If Gaijin had to introduce T90A i believe they would had done so along with 2A5 ( they had the model already done so yeah ) but they didn't so i believe there is a reason for that . Imo they are going with T90M wich was probably not finished yet  when 1.87 dropped  .

 

I don't think it makes much sense to introduce a fully modern cutting edge tank when there are still the 1990s predecessors that have yet to be added.

Once (if) top tier is fully balanced out, it might be that t-80U/t-90A perform just fine anyway. There may be advantages to T-90A that won't be as apparent until it arrives in game, so we should wait and see how it performs before jumping the gun with t-90M.

Bear in mind adding T-90M is going to spark a lot of complaining from US and probably German players. They'll have 1990s tanks while Russia gets a 2017 design. Look at how much US players are complaining about the 10 year gap between m1a1 and leo2a5 already. They'll be asking for m1a2 sepv2 (if not sepv3) as soon as t-90M arrives, and then it will be powercreep all over again.

Let's proceed with caution in terms of the new tanks we add from now on. Gaijin have already demonstrated multiple times how badly they can screw things up by jumping the gun with new additions. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dantheman66 said:

There may be advantages to T-90A that won't be as apparent until it arrives in game

 

It's not like we have no experience with T90A we already saw what it could do compared to 2A5 back in the Aprils fool event hence why it's hard to see what those unexpected advantages could be ! The only advatage it could have is 3BM46 or  3BM59/60 in wich case US and German players are going to complain  anyways so yeah .....

 

43 minutes ago, Dantheman66 said:

Bear in mind adding T-90M is going to spark a lot of complaining from US and probably German players. They'll have 1990s tanks while Russia gets a 2017 design. Look at how much US players are complaining about the 10 year gap between m1a1 and leo2a5 already. They'll be asking for m1a2 sepv2 (if not sepv3) as soon as t-90M arrives, and then it will be powercreep all over again.

 

I believe players don't care that much about DOI as long as the machines are balanced , the main reason why US players complain about the gap between M1A1 and 2A5 is because  2A5 is clearly a better machine. Lets be honest here peoples will always complain about something .... so as long as we have a balanced meta where all tanks have to aim for small weakspots like it is the case now for those facing  2A5s i couldn't care less about peoples complains . With this in mind T90M is about the only tank able to bring this level of protection on the Russian side , sure it might seem as too much to some  but ammo makes 80% of the tank so as long as you give it only 3BM42 i strongly believe it would be quite balanced .

Edited by Raldi92
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

I believe players don't care that much about DOI as long as the machines are balanced , the main reason why US players complain about the gap between M1A1 and 2A5 is because  2A5 is clearly a better machine. Lets be honest here peoples will always complain about something .... so as long as we have a balanced meta where all tanks have to aim for small weakspots like it is the case now for those facing  2A5s i couldn't care less about peoples complains . With this in mind T90M is about the only tank able to bring this level of protection on the Russian side , sure it might seem as too much to some  but ammo makes 80% of the tank so as long as you give it only 3BM42 i strongly believe it would be quite balanced .

I highly doubt only 3BM42 is going to be given to the T90M. Considering its a 31 year difference of DOI. It's like giving the M1 Abrams M392 APDS. Trust me, when Gaijin introduces things like the 2A6 and M1A2 SEP, the T-90M will have equivalent ammo. I've never heard of a 2A6 firing DM33 or 23. Only 53 and 63. 

 

Anyway we can only sit and wait. Rumours are that the M1A2 and 2A6 are coming in the next "modern tanks patch" which likely won't be for a few patches. The M1A2 I expect to be using its proper ammo of M829A1 as stock and M829A2 as top round. The 2A6 perhaps DM53 and then 63.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

It's not like we have no experience with T90A we already saw what it could do compared to 2A5 back in the Aprils fool event hence why it's hard to see what those unexpected advantages could be ! The only advatage it could have is 3BM46 or  3BM59/60 in wich case US and German players are going to complain  anyways so yeah .....

And it competed well enough vs leo2a5 then, and that was the leo2a5 with Dm53 and significantly more armour than currently.

3bm46 or 36bm60 will not be able to penetrate the turret of the leo2a5 regardless, it will have to aim for the hull/drivers hatch/mantlet/turret ring just the same as 3bm42 does already.

In terms of advantages, there's the Shtora APS system that will provide protection from atgms (I.e, helicopters), and we'll have to see how the armour profile looks in game as well. I also don't know how the gun handling compares to t-80U, but that could be an improvement for Russia as well. 

4 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

I believe players don't care that much about DOI as long as the machines are balanced , the main reason why US players complain about the gap between M1A1 and 2A5 is because  2A5 is clearly a better machine.

They do, and adding a 2017 vehicle opens us up to power creep. Players will say "we have X vehicle from 2017, why can't we have t14 or m1a2c or leo2a7?".

4 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

Lets be honest here peoples will always complain about something .... so as long as we have a balanced meta where all tanks have to aim for small weakspots like it is the case now for those facing  2A5s i couldn't care less about peoples complains . With this in mind T90M is about the only tank able to bring this level of protection on the Russian side , sure it might seem as too much to some  but ammo makes 80% of the tank so as long as you give it only 3BM42 i strongly believe it would be quite balanced .

You could be right that the t-90m is necessary for balance, but bearing in mind the last few updates I would advise caution when it comes to adding more modern vehicles. Let's see how the t-90A performs in game before we rush into the t-90m, otherwise the pendulum could just keep swinging in terms of what nation is FOTM. 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mememeist3r said:

I highly doubt only 3BM42 is going to be given to the T90M. Considering its a 31 year difference of DOI.

 

It certainly won't be the first and probably not the last time Gaijin gives outdated ammo to an MBT , this is how they have been balancing modern MBTs for a long time .

 

15 hours ago, Mememeist3r said:

Anyway we can only sit and wait.

 

Agree !

 

14 hours ago, Dantheman66 said:

And it competed well enough vs leo2a5 then, and that was the leo2a5 with Dm53

 

Well this im not sure , main reason being back then we had mixed battles instead of full Leo 2A5 team vs full T90A team so it's hard to judge let alone say it competed well , but back then 2A5 had much better survivability and mobility ( wich are the most important factors in WT meta ) and it will still be the case if the T90A gets implemented .

 

14 hours ago, Dantheman66 said:

In terms of advantages, there's the Shtora APS system that will provide protection from atgms (I.e, helicopters), and we'll have to see how the armour profile looks in game as well. I also don't know how the gun handling compares to t-80U, but that could be an improvement for Russia as well.

 

I don't believe Gaijin will bother to model Shtora but i could be wrong , as about gun handling T90A should have around  35°/s  turret rotation VS 16,8°/s for T80U  wich is for sure a big improvement but not a game changer when it comes to actual gameplay .

 

14 hours ago, Dantheman66 said:

You could be right that the t-90m is necessary for balance, but bearing in mind the last few updates I would advise caution when it comes to adding more modern vehicles. Let's see how the t-90A performs in game before we rush into the t-90m, otherwise the pendulum could just keep swinging in terms of what nation is FOTM.

 

Don't get me wrong im not saying T90A won't work im simply saying that it will be a side step for WT meta compared to T80s hence why T90M would make sense in terms of balance BUT  only if it gets outdated ammo .

Edited by Raldi92
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/04/2019 at 02:46, RoflSeal said:

S 4kph reverse speed typical of most of the modern Russian MBTs 

 

Forward Comrades ....forward

 

Order No. 227 has been activated ...

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer the T-90A with the 1000 hp engine if Gaijin wants to go up to pre-2010s period or else the Russians have to get T-90M, T-72B3, T-80BVM and possibly T-14 which I think is not going to happen in the near future yet in response to Leo 2A6.

 

We have yet to see tanks like T-72B, T-90(1993) and of course T-90A. We could see Svinets and Vacuum APFSDS especially on the T-90A.

Edited by TovarishToNy
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TovarishToNy said:

We have yet to see tanks like T-72B, T-90(1993) and of course T-90A. We could see Svinets and Vacuum APFSDS especially on the T-90A.

 

T90 makes no sense whatsoever at least not as an 2A5 counter  and T72B ( i assume 1989 ) will again make no deference against 2A5 .

 

Im not sure T90A can fire 3BM69 since it requires 2A82-1M cannon  ( higher chamber pressure )  , only T14 and T90M are equiped with this cannon . Regardless  i don't see Gaijin introducing  Vacuum even with Armata ( IF that ever happens )  let alone on T90series tank since if the penetration is anywhere near the estimated values of 1000mm at 2km it would render  any possible opposition obsolete !

Edited by Raldi92
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

T90 makes no sense whatsoever at least not as an 2A5 counter  and T72B ( i assume 1989 ) will again make no deference against 2A5 .

T-90 obr 1993 can have 3BM42M Lekalo and T-90A can have 3BM60 Svinets-2.

 

I'm thinking what should be done for the T-72B like there could be 2 separate T-72Bs with the obr 1985 that can get Kontakt-1 upgrade(same as T-64B and T-80B) and the T-72B obr 1990 with Kontakt-5 before the first T-90 then T-90A.

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

T90 makes no sense whatsoever at least not as an 2A5 counter  and T72B ( i assume 1989 ) will again make no deference against 2A5 .

 

Im not sure T90A can fire 3BM69 since it requires 2A82-1M cannon  ( higher chamber pressure )  , only T14 and T90M are equiped with this cannon . Regardless  i don't see Gaijin introducing  Vacuum even with Armata ( IF that ever happens )  let alone on T90series tank since if the penetration is anywhere near the estimated values of 1000mm at 2km it would render  any possible opposition obsolete !

Highly doubt that the penetration is 1000 mm at even 0 meters. An APFSDS penetrator generally can only penetrate at maximum around its own length, so unless the rod is a metre long, then no.

 

Trusting Wikipedia for penetration figures is not advisable. The penetration of 1000 m at 2km isn't even sourced, like most of the penetration figures on that page. Furthermore the projectile's length figures are misleading because they provide the total length of the ammunition, with casing included. 

Edited by Mememeist3r
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mememeist3r said:

....

 

Trusting Wikipedia for penetration figures is not advisable. The penetration of 1000 m at 2km isn't even sourced, like most of the penetration figures on that page. Furthermore the projectile's length figures are misleading because they provide the total length of the ammunition, with casing included. 

What casing???

Share this post


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

T-90 obr 1993 can have 3BM42M Lekalo and T-90A can have 3BM60 Svinets-2.

 

There is a difference between CAN and WILL !

 

12 hours ago, TovarishToNy said:

I'm thinking what should be done for the T-72B like there could be 2 separate T-72Bs with the obr 1985 that can get Kontakt-1 upgrade(same as T-64B and T-80B) and the T-72B obr 1990 with Kontakt-5 before the first T-90 then T-90A.

 

Sure maybe later in the game but for now priority is to counter Leo 2A5 and for this you need T90A at the very minimum. 

 

12 hours ago, Mememeist3r said:

Highly doubt that the penetration is 1000 mm at even 0 meters. An APFSDS penetrator generally can only penetrate at maximum around its own length, so unless the rod is a metre long, then no.Trusting Wikipedia for penetration figures is not advisable. The penetration of 1000 m at 2km isn't even sourced, like most of the penetration figures on that page. Furthermore the projectile's length figures are misleading because they provide the total length of the ammunition, with casing included. 

 

Im not trusting anything hence why i said IF penetration is anywhere near 1000mm . The rod itself is supposed  to make the most of T14 autoloader and should be very close to 1m length if not 1m . Also dont forget the increase in muzzle velocity  due to higher chamber pressure ! 

Even if we take the most pessimistic figures penetration should be at least 900mm+  so it would still lolpen everything it faces . 

 

Screenshot_20190428-165651.jpg

( This is the new APFSDS wich they are not showing directly  for obvious reasons but just notice the size of the container ) 

Edited by Raldi92
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does make me wonder how this ruskie tanks make a blind bit of difference as they are all pretty much the same tank in a new skin t90 is no better than a t80

  • Confused 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

 

Sure maybe later un the game but for now priority is to counter Leo 2A5 and for this you need T90A at the very minimum. 

 

Problem is the gap from the T-72A up to T-90A where you are skipping 3 major variants while Gaijin just made the T-55A then T-62M-1 a prerequisite to get the T-72A much like the T-10M being a requirement to get the T-64A where I have both of them prior to that update. Another option is to have a bridge to the T-90 from the T-80U and the T-72B obr 1990 where researching atleast one of the said vehicles allow you to research T-90 1993 then T-90A or go from T-80U to T-90 then T-90A for the short term to introduce the 2 T-90s at once while adding T-72B obr 85 and 90 later on. I still remember the time where the only Soviet tank to effectively fight an Abrams is the T-80B until the T-80U got added.

 

My idea for APFSDS selection on the future T-72/T-90 line

 

T-72B obr 85 and 90 - 3BM22 stock, 3BM42 Mango top shell

T-90 1993 - 3BM42 Mango stock, 3BM42M Lekalo top shell

T-90A - 3BM42M Lekalo stock, 3BM60 Svinets-2 top shell

 

Of course they better decompress the BRs like give the newer tanks higher BRs so they should have the ammo that should've been with the tank in the first place plus atleast reducing power creep on the lower BRs where tanks like T-64A, T-72A, XM-1, etc won't see the newer tanks unless you bring a higher BR tank on that lineup.

medal

Share this post


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

Citation.png.5d4bb7bf6473f0e1066a12b961e

 

Physics mainly !

 

Lets take 3BM42 as an example  :

Spoiler

125mm_BM-42_APFSDS.JPG

Spoiler

3BM-42.jpg

 

Total projectile length is around 570mm and the tungsten segmented rod itself  is anywhere between 440-470mm .  According to ingame stats 3BM42 pens 479mm at 0m 90°  wich very close to it's rod length ( if not exceeding it )  . With this in mind it's hard to see how 3BM69 with ( one would believe ) better design and more muzzle velocity is going to pen less than 900mm IF it's rod is anywhere close 1000mm in length .

 

Don't get me wrong i know very well this is nothing more than guesstimates !  Regardless im not going to argue more on this since we are talking about rounds that we will probably never see ingame .

Edited by Raldi92
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mememeist3r said:

Highly doubt that the penetration is 1000 mm at even 0 meters. An APFSDS penetrator generally can only penetrate at maximum around its own length, so unless the rod is a metre long, then no.

 

Trusting Wikipedia for penetration figures is not advisable. The penetration of 1000 m at 2km isn't even sourced, like most of the penetration figures on that page. Furthermore the projectile's length figures are misleading because they provide the total length of the ammunition, with casing included. 

Svinets 1-2 are both around 750 mm long and would do around the same in pen.

 

2A82 weapons gets increased shot energy and velocity approaching 2 km/s which is a limit for guns using chemical charge. This is the diffirence between 2a82 and current weapons which shoot at ~1600m/s. Its going to use at least ~900 mm long ammo and this will provide it penetration values that are approaching 1000 mm but who knows how much exactly.

 

2A83 would easily overcome 1000mm.

Edited by Max__Damage
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

T90 makes no sense whatsoever at least not as an 2A5 counter  and T72B ( i assume 1989 ) will again make no deference against 2A5 .

 

Im not sure T90A can fire 3BM69 since it requires 2A82-1M cannon  ( higher chamber pressure )  , only T14 and T90M are equiped with this cannon . Regardless  i don't see Gaijin introducing  Vacuum even with Armata ( IF that ever happens )  let alone on T90series tank since if the penetration is anywhere near the estimated values of 1000mm at 2km it would render  any possible opposition obsolete !

Does not need to be a direct counter for the leopard 2a5. Just needs to be approximately on the same level an i think april fools was like that already so its fine especially if there will be abrams on the same team.

medal medal

Share this post


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

Svinets 1-2 are both around 750 mm long and would do around the same in pen.

 

2A82 weapons gets increased shot energy and velocity approaching 2 km/s which is a limit for guns using chemical charge. This is the diffirence between 2a82 and current weapons which shoot at ~1600m/s. Its going to use at least ~900 mm long ammo and this will provide it penetration values that are approaching 1000 mm but who knows how much exactly.

  

 2A83 would easily overcome 1000mm.

Svinets 1-2 aren't going to pen "around the same" because one is DU and another is Tungsten. 

 

I ran Lanz Odermatt for the mystical Vacuum 1 (with the impossible length of 900 mm of the penetrator and not just the projectile) with the proported 2 km/s velocity and only got around 950 mm of pen at 0 metres. 

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that it is going to exceed 1000mm but even if 950 is true its pretty close to that figure.

Speaking about impossible 900 mm autoloader this is actually possible technically for older tanks even if they never opted to do that in T80BVM, T72B3 or T90M. It requires extra 160mm which is inconvenient to say the least. These tanks use T90A autoloader only with ammo such as svinets 1 and 2.

Vacuum is only for use in Armata currently.

 

1547642767_2a82.jpg

Edited by Max__Damage
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Max__Damage said:

Does not need to be a direct counter for the leopard 2a5. Just needs to be approximately on the same level an i think april fools was like that already so its fine especially if there will be abrams on the same team.

 

Well if it only has to be " approximately "  on the same level then we are good with T80U and M1A1 i guess .....  this is clearly  not the case according to 2A5 win rates  hence why im afraid " approximately good " is not good enough ! 

 

8 hours ago, Mememeist3r said:

I ran Lanz Odermatt for the mystical Vacuum 1 (with the impossible length of 900 mm of the penetrator and not just the projectile) with the proported 2 km/s velocity and only got around 950 mm of pen at 0 metres. 

 

1) What makes you think 900mm penetrator length is impossible ? 

 

2) There are many unknown  variables on Lanz Odermatt calculator that could impact the result (assuming we do know exact penetrator length and velocity .... wich is not the case   ) such as penetrator diameter  , frustum length , frustum diameter and density . The fact that  simply by changing the length and the velocity to estimated  values you get close to 1000mm of penetration shows that the 1000m figure is far from being unrealistic .

 

I believe we are loosing our time arguing about such a round  even Gaijin will have hard time finding  values for it !  

Edited by Raldi92
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

 

Well if it only has to be " approximately "  on the same level then we are good with T80U and M1A1 i guess .....  this is clearly  not the case according to 2A5 win rates  hence why im afraid " approximately good " is not good enough ! 

 

 

1) What makes you think 900mm penetrator length is impossible ? 

 

2) There are many unknown  variables on Lanz Odermatt calculator that could impact the result (assuming we do know exact penetrator length and velocity .... wich is not the case   ) such as penetrator diameter  , frustum length , frustum diameter and density . The fact that  simply by changing the length and the velocity to estimated  values you get close to 1000mm of penetration shows that the 1000m figure is far from being unrealistic .

 

I believe we are loosing our time arguing about such a round  even Gaijin will have hard time finding  values for it !  

1. 900 mm is the purported projectile length, not penetrator length. The projectile looses a few dozen mm from the stabilising fins and ballistic windshield, reducing the overall penetrator length to say around 800 mm. 

Spoiler

670px-M829.jpg

Just an example, we use M829. The overall concept is the same anyway. See the balistic cap and rear fins take away from the overall penetrator length, so it isn't possible to be 900 mm. We're not even going to talk about the propellant casing providing some extra length.

 

2.Frustum figures don't affect penetrative capability that much. Density is going by the Gaijin standard of 18600 kg/m^3 for depleted uranium. Penetrator diameter also doesn't affect the final figure significantly. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really need to push the power creep further with a 2017 T-90M against 1985 tanks?

 

Adding the T-90A/M1A1HA+new top tiers for minor nations should be more than enough to bring back some balance.

 

The T-90M deserves to come alongside modern western MBT like the Leopard 2A7 and M1A2C.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mememeist3r said:

1)  900 mm is the purported projectile length, not penetrator length.

 

This litle do you/we know ! 

 

18 hours ago, Mememeist3r said:

2 ) Frustum figures don't affect penetrative capability that much. Density is going by the Gaijin standard of 18600 kg/m^3 for depleted uranium. Penetrator diameter also doesn't affect the final figure significantly. 

 

Frustrum figures might not affect penetration ( haven't veryfied myself ) capacity that much in this calculator but IRL frustrum diameter does certainly affects penetration especialy at the initial stage . 

 

Anyway that's my last comment about this round not going to loose more time on this . 

 

Edited by Raldi92
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.