Jump to content

You can't win against German top tier


2 hours ago, _SilentFlummi_ said:

And as mentioned above, when the T-72B3 came out, it also had a high screening rate and nobody complained about that. 

But when the Germans get the 2A6, which has the same weak points as the 2A5, then everyone freaks out and complains... 

Just stupid 

Because the 2A6 has DM53, which ignores any armor advantage that some otherwise inferior 10.7 tanks have (like the Challenger 2F).

In addition, Leopard 2A5 + 6 makes TWO super tanks , no other country other than Sweden comes close.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

And as mentioned above, when the T-72B3 came out, it also had a high screening rate and nobody complained about that. 

But when the Germans get the 2A6, which has the same weak points as the 2A5, then everyone freaks out and complains... 

Just stupid 

Im sure that you didnt take a look at the forum back then because there was like 5 or 6 diferent post complaing about the russian high win rate

 

Edited by SrNowel59917
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

M829A2 was US's answer to Kontakt-5 as M829A1 was unable to deal with it, M829A3 was their answer to the speculated double-layered 3rd gen ERA and M829A4 is their answer to the newest generations of ERA as well as improving their chances of defeating older variants.

My confusion surrounding this specific claim is largely based around a U.S military RDT&E document from 2000. Specifically regarding M829A3, the document claims (bolding on my end) that "This project includes the DFL program which will enhance tank KE penetrator lethality, particularly against ERA appliqué arrays now available on fielded threat systems, through use of a precursor defeat mechanism." At the very least this seems to attribute the fact that M829A2 doesn't feature a 'breakaway tip' in the same manner as L27 or DM53, and the development of M829A3 was meant to close this capability gap. Of note in particular, this report is of 2000 vintage, putting it well before Relikt was unveiled, and as I bolded it seems to concern was on fielded threat systems. Unless Russia managed to send Relikt back in time, it seems fairly unambiguous that K5 is the ERA in question. 

 

If you have sources to the contrary I'll gladly eat crow, but I'm still skeptical that M82A2 was a reliable means of dealing with K5. 

 

10 hours ago, senzawa said:

M829A3 has been literally the only NATO round capable of dealing with 3rd GEN ERA because neither DM53 not 63 were. 

I'd be interested in seeing the claims regarding this, M829A4 was identified in a 2016 DOT&E document as being the "materiel solution for the Abrams’ lethality capability gap against threat vehicles equipped with third-generation explosive reactive armor." With this being a 2016 document, I think we can both agree that the 3rd gen ERA in question was Relikt, and the 'lethality capability gap' was regarding M829A3's performance against it. 

 

Again, if you got sources to the country I'll happily stuff my foot in my mouth. 

 

Share this post


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

My confusion surrounding this specific claim is largely based around a U.S military RDT&E document from 2000. Specifically regarding M829A3, the document claims (bolding on my end) that "This project includes the DFL program which will enhance tank KE penetrator lethality, particularly against ERA appliqué arrays now available on fielded threat systems, through use of a precursor defeat mechanism." At the very least this seems to attribute the fact that M829A2 doesn't feature a 'breakaway tip' in the same manner as L27 or DM53, and the development of M829A3 was meant to close this capability gap. Of note in particular, this report is of 2000 vintage, putting it well before Relikt was unveiled, and as I bolded it seems to concern was on fielded threat systems. Unless Russia managed to send Relikt back in time, it seems fairly unambiguous that K5 is the ERA in question. 

 

If you have sources to the contrary I'll gladly eat crow, but I'm still skeptical that M82A2 was a reliable means of dealing with K5. 

 

I'd be interested in seeing the claims regarding this, M829A4 was identified in a 2016 DOT&E document as being the "materiel solution for the Abrams’ lethality capability gap against threat vehicles equipped with third-generation explosive reactive armor." With this being a 2016 document, I think we can both agree that the 3rd gen ERA in question was Relikt, and the 'lethality capability gap' was regarding M829A3's performance against it. 

 

Again, if you got sources to the country I'll happily stuff my foot in my mouth. 

 

DM53 and L27A1 don't have a break away tip, they utilized the same method as M829A2, a steep tip. This can be seen from the length of the projectile, a break awy tip requires much longer penetrator that is more than 800mm (M829A3), while DM53 and L27A1 are around 600-700mm, the same level as M829A1 and A2.

 

One thing I don't agree with the original post is that M829A4 shouldn't be using the same method as A3. The actual mechanism is classified. But from the known info that is has a data link and a patent from its producer (it was revealed in this forum but I'm not able to find it right now), it probably uses a tip that fires forward at the last second of impact that can trick APS and ERA to activate prematurally. Thus it can save more length for the DU penetrator than M829A3.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP is correct.  In this patch, its impossible to manage a decent win rate against German teams.  Especially as the US.  Not sure whether its the lack of decent players, the lack of a 10.7 backup, or what, but trying to play my M1A2 has been one of the worst experiences of WT.  Just awful.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/01/2021 at 10:24, senzawa said:

Generalization on my side but that doesn't really matter what you really get called here, i've been called an SJW because i refused to state my gender after all. Nontheless, DM53 is just the tip of the iceberg because projectiles such as M829A3/4 and DM73 can quite literally yeet everything away from existence.

I got called a Wehraboo in another thread even though I've literally played them lol. 

Share this post


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

My confusion surrounding this specific claim is largely based around a U.S military RDT&E document from 2000. Specifically regarding M829A3, the document claims (bolding on my end) that "This project includes the DFL program which will enhance tank KE penetrator lethality, particularly against ERA appliqué arrays now available on fielded threat systems, through use of a precursor defeat mechanism." At the very least this seems to attribute the fact that M829A2 doesn't feature a 'breakaway tip' in the same manner as L27 or DM53, and the development of M829A3 was meant to close this capability gap. Of note in particular, this report is of 2000 vintage, putting it well before Relikt was unveiled, and as I bolded it seems to concern was on fielded threat systems. Unless Russia managed to send Relikt back in time, it seems fairly unambiguous that K5 is the ERA in question. 

 

If you have sources to the contrary I'll gladly eat crow, but I'm still skeptical that M82A2 was a reliable means of dealing with K5. 

 

I'd be interested in seeing the claims regarding this, M829A4 was identified in a 2016 DOT&E document as being the "materiel solution for the Abrams’ lethality capability gap against threat vehicles equipped with third-generation explosive reactive armor." With this being a 2016 document, I think we can both agree that the 3rd gen ERA in question was Relikt, and the 'lethality capability gap' was regarding M829A3's performance against it. 

 

Again, if you got sources to the country I'll happily stuff my foot in my mouth. 

 

 

In the GD Ordnance patent from 2003 (the year M829A3 entered service) it shows a breakoff tip design defeating a dual-flyer plate design, which is what Relikt is. Just look at the similarity between the ERA shown being defeated in the patent and Relikt. Now yes, Relikt was not shown publicly till the T-72B2 in 2006 (IRC), but it was not the first ERA since Kontakt-5 with its single flyer plate. There was also Kaktus ERA and Malakhit (not the T-14 kind) on the Object 187. Malakhit is also said to be the prototype of Relikt and that it used a dual flyer plate.

 

US Patent US 6,662,726 B1:

Spoiler

 

Relikt:

Spoiler

15940546_1358775567514518_41509958091802

 

Malakhit and Object 187: https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/33-models-and-pictures-of-soviet-mbt-designs-from-80s-object-477a-object-490-buntar-and-object-299/

 

As for M829A2 reliably defeating K-5, Nii Stali said it could kill a T-72B/T-90 with K-5 from 6km. Now this is likely an overstatement, but its clear the Russians considered it effective. 

Spoiler

 

So then in M829A3 is effective against Relikt, what's the point of M829A4? To begin with, M829A4 is also said to be able to defeat APS systems, not just 3rd generation ERA. I also disagree that 3rd gen ERA only refers to Relikt. The US acquired a Oplot-M with Duplet ERA, which according to the Ukrainians is more effective vs KE than Relikt. There is also the protection suit on the T-14 (which may be ERA, SLERA, or NxRA) that was shown before M829A4 finished development. So Relikt is not the most modern or advanced threat the US may be looking to defeat.  

 

Spoiler

 

 

  • Thanks 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

And as mentioned above, when the T-72B3 came out, it also had a high screening rate and nobody complained about that. 

But when the Germans get the 2A6, which has the same weak points as the 2A5, then everyone freaks out and complains... 

Just stupid 

 

 

Everyone complained about the T-72B3

Despite having the same weakspots as the T-80U, everyone freaked out and complained

 

13 hours ago, croatiankiller said:

Germany can go head to head with enemy and win.No allied nation can do that.They should flank as germans have poor awareness and reaction time.Instead they go head on and wonder how they die.Allied CAS is bes on any tier except 8.7-9.3,9.7.People tend to rant and cry but they never asked themselves a question should they switch tactics and play on advantages.USA had so good K/D ratio that they moved all 76 shermans up to 0.3 BR and hellcat for 1.0 BR while first tiger H1 went down and then Panther D by 0.3 BR.Last time I stomped 4 shermans on 6.7 with my tiger just because they couldn't pen my front side but instead flanking me they just stood and shoot at me.

Same thing applies on top tier.Germany dominates on ground but now they have good awareness and reaction time while allies still suck in that.Germans had a long learning curve and they know how to exploit the situation.

 

 

cool story bro

 

13 hours ago, croatiankiller said:

People complain on 2A6 mainly because of DM53 but keep forgeting that you will still have to shoot as same weakspots as with DM13. Leo 2A6 is superb in good hands wut weight in bad.It combines everything you want on tank in the game.

 

 

Tell that to the Leclerc and Challenger 2s.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

With this being a 2016 document, I think we can both agree that the 3rd gen ERA in question was Relikt, and the 'lethality capability gap' was regarding M829A3's performance against it. 

When the M829E4 was the center of discussion a few years ago, people generally suspected it was designed to counter Malachit on the Armata, which was revealed in 2015 but possibly already knock by West intelligence people that.

medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 

.

Some real good stuff here, thanks for the clarification!

 

Raymond already mentioned it, but at least regarding M829A4 I somewhat suspect that the secret sauce for dealing with hard-kill APS systems is the data-link. Would imagine the dart has a means to perhaps fire a dummy projectile ahead of it as it nears the tank, prematurely setting off the APS. 

 

Though I am interested in the U.S getting its hands on Duplot, you know around what year that was?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, NoblemanSwerve said:

Some real good stuff here, thanks for the clarification!

 

Raymond already mentioned it, but at least regarding M829A4 I somewhat suspect that the secret sauce for dealing with hard-kill APS systems is the data-link. Would imagine the dart has a means to perhaps fire a dummy projectile ahead of it as it nears the tank, prematurely setting off the APS. 

 

Though I am interested in the U.S getting its hands on Duplot, you know around what year that was?

I don recall hard kill APS is useful against apfsds travel around 1500m/s to 2000m/s speed

 

Edited by [email protected]
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I don recall hard kill APS is useful against apfsds travel around 1500m/s to 2000m/s speed

 

At the very least Russian press releases pin the T-14's Afghanit APS of being able to intercept projectiles traveling at 1700 m/s with capability growth claimed to intercept targets up to ~3,000 m/s. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NoblemanSwerve said:

At the very least Russian press releases pin the T-14's Afghanit APS of being able to intercept projectiles traveling at 1700 m/s with capability growth claimed to intercept targets up to ~3,000 m/s. 

 

 

Woah what kind of projectile they use to intercept flying thin rods that travels at hypersonic speed

 

From what i gather around trophy system

 

"When a projectile is detected, the internal computer calculates an approach vector before the projectile arrives. Once the incoming weapon is classified, the computers calculate the optimal time and angle to fire the counter-measures."

 

The afghanit need to do that but way faster and probably need a more suitable projectile to knock off apfsds.

 

Atm it looks like propaganda.

Edited by [email protected]
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ostensibly given enough range between the target and the shooter, and a sensor suite capable of detecting the firing of the main gun I think it would be possible with todays technology to intercept an incoming projectile. If you detect a 1700 m/s projectile being fired at you from 2.5km away, that gives your system a ~1.5 second window in which to activate. 

 

Of course all that is under ideal circumstance, the closer you are to the target, the faster the round, and the quality of the sensor suite of the defending vehicle can all massively impact the time in which the system can react. Never mind the fact that unlike a chemical warhead, it's much more difficult to destroy an incoming kinetic penetrator. 

Share this post


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

Funny how everyone is complaining about DM53 when M1A2 gets a round that's only slightly worse but the tank is way better than 2A6.

:facepalm: :blink: o_o

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thodin said:

Abrams are far superior to Leopard 2 derivates.

Leopard 2 series from Leopard 2A4 on has consistently superior armor and firepower than Abrams derivatives. DM53 is only one factor that leads to German over-powerness at top tier.

medal medal medal

Share this post


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

 Leopard 2A4 on has consistently superior armor and firepower than Abrams derivatives.

Yea no, not the 2A4, its armour is considerably inferior to M1IP and more on par with the standard M1(105).

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny is fact that Leopards on Top is a good tank now, but not OP. Yes, face to face need to be carefully, but still it's not OP. 

Like i said, now there is no problem to pen him with 3BM42 ammo, any Abrams ammo (ohh, maybe xm-1 or m1/ip with 105, idk). 

The problem is fact, many, really many on RB especially, players dont know how to play againist much better experienced German team. Really, i have USA/ZSRR/France/UK/Germany tree, and Germany is the heaviest tree to grind for me. Ofc for some time, while i get more experience with german tanks. 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, croatiankiller said:
10 hours ago, [email protected] said:
On 12/01/2021 at 14:09, croatiankiller said:

People complain on 2A6 mainly because of DM53 but keep forgeting that you will still have to shoot as same weakspots as with DM13.

 

Tell that to the Leclerc and Challenger 2s.

 

I don't have to.Just go in protection analysis and you will see for yourself.

 

Leclerc vs dm13

Spoiler

dY1aiRD.jpg

g0UbfEY.jpg

qVKPv0e.jpg

 

leclerc vs dm63

 

Spoiler

EeNhjpB.jpg

p3Xq9yN.jpg

JDT4AUz.jpg

 

Challenger 2 Glacis vs dm13 then dm63

Spoiler

JFDfT5I.jpg

Hm7j1B6.jpg

 

yes I see for myself that germany indeed suffers

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

 

Leclerc vs dm13

Reveal hidden contents

 

leclerc vs dm63

 

Reveal hidden contents

 

Challenger 2 Glacis vs dm13 then dm63

Reveal hidden contents

 

yes I see for myself that germany indeed suffers

I told you the same weakspots.Turret is not one of them.Shoot them in their WEAKSPOTS like lower glacis or under barrel you will get the same result with DM13 and DM53.If it's hard for you to read simple sentence well yeah I'm sorry but then you need help.

Screenshot_3.png

Screenshot_5.png

Screenshot_6.png

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.

×
×
  • Create New...