Oh wow. Smin hit that one
French EW? Crazy. I didnt even know that, do you have any source info?
If we’ve learned anything from the Leo 2A7V missing D-tech bug report that just means it’ll get denied and have a personal “**** you” attached to it in the form of a dev blog saying “Nuh uh”.
5 Likes
Can’t carry everything I guess. Hell in that case I couldn’t carry anything.
And it wasn’t like I was throwing those games too. This is with a 1.7 K/D in the SEPv2. I was lucky that people kept leaving me alone.
Had to use the WayBack Machine to get it but yeah:
1 Like
Does Gaijin realise that the reason the new top tier jets aren’t “overperforming” in the stats is because there’s an equal amount of them on each team, more or less?
Stick 8 busted planes on each team and fill the rest with cannon fodder, those teams are all things considered pretty balanced in terms of capability. The planes within absolutely aren’t, but overall those teams are pretty similar in what they can do. So naturally the win rates and kds are pretty balanced. Doesn’t change the fact that that Phantom with Aim 9Gs is going to get absolutely clowned on by the Su-27 that accelerates twice as fast, has a far more powerful radar, and is currently launching 6 R-73s and 4 R-27Es on it using the HMD while having 3x as many countermeasures to dodge the missile that would be incoming, if that poor Phantom even had all aspect missiles, which it doesn’t.
That isn’t even the worst of it, because with these 16v16 matches in all of Air RB, that phantom is probably having to deal with at least 2 of those Su-27s and a couple MiGs or F-16s at the same time. Everyone is, no wonder the stats aren’t looking exceptional if everyone’s so overwhelmed constantly.
Yes, they aren’t the same BR, we know that. Problem is they shouldn’t be fighting each other at all. An F-104 starfighter should not be fighting an F-16, let alone F-15s and Su-27s.
Your reasoning is poor, re-evaluate it. The entire community wants BR decompression, we’ve wanted it for years, and your only reaction has been to continually powercreep jets until we have the stupidity that is the F-104A and MiG-21 and Yak 38 with four R-60s at 9.3, which still somehow get ruined by all aspect missiles in uptiers.
You’re better than this Gaijin, so do a better job, like you told us you would earlier this year.
9 Likes
Indeed. 100%
And the worst thing is that the ridiculous compression from 2019 has gone all but a few of the old good players and community.
I really miss when Eurus, KLAN, CAT, old 100, Woona, Eris was active. If those squadron squads or single player were in the enemy, my teammates were almost always wiped out in few mins, but these days that is no longer the case.
1 Like
No, KMW was never proven guilty, only Rheinmetall was involved in this and it was for a separate contract regarding ammunition.
It’s a cope, during Kuwaiti trials the same kind of performance gap was seen:
Mind you, the Americans here state that M1A2 is the only one with hunter-killer which is factually incorrect (and was so at the time).
It was their fist as even t72 had it before them
The M1A2 had a ballistic protection in the export version. Shooting attempt against its best ballistic protection was made in the United States.
Shooting tests were carried out in each country against partial hulls of the different ones the tanks’ chassis and turret protection modules. Corresponding shooting test was also done with relevant threat ammunition (slightly lower threat levels for the chassis) at FFK in Karlsborg against all tanks alternatively equipped with a Swedish-developed protection from Åkers Krutbruk and the German partner IBD (Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth).
Inspired by the chosen protection solution in it American tank M1A1 DU where the Chobham armor has been upgraded with layers of depleted uranium, test firings were also made in Sweden against this type of material. The results showed the possibility of achieving better protection performance if the volume and not the weight was limiting.
Rickard Lindström (project lead for the Swedish tank trials) states that while the armour given to Sweden was the export version, the firing trials were conducted against “the best available” armour.
They also had tested DU armour themselves and found that while the volume efficiency is rather high, the weight efficiency is low.
Everything indicates that the armour protection offered by DU M1A2 is the same or equivalent as that found on the proposed non-DU M1A2 (the weight of the tested M1A2 was 62.5t while quite a few sources put the weight of the DU M1A2 at 61.4t).
During the Greek trials, they again offered this armour package.
It can also be seen that there are at least TWO export armour packages, one for NATO members or allies and another for places like Egypt or Saudi-Arabia.
They were even contemplating sending DU armour to Greece.
I think the “armour issues” slide says enough.
they believe this issue was with them changing the engine / uprating it to 1500hp.
Mistranslation.
From what is available, it seems the CR2 featured the MT 883 engine from the europowerpack but did not feature the HSWL 295 transmission, instead it retained the TN54 and there were issues in how they joined them together and tuned them.
It’s an integration issue and probably because TN54 was not meant to take this higher level of power.
You notice that Leclerc which did use the complete europowerpack had none of these issues.
Chassillan is quite biased.
The same table can be found in the magazine “RAIDS” and features some very strange and factually incorrect data.
It puts leclerc as “first position” in 3 out of 4 categories, yet the trial results only put it in first in one of them; the mobility was found to be best (7t lighter and newer powerpack + fuel barrels tend to do that)…
The only data here which I’ve been able to verify was the cost.
2 Likes
The Swedish export package was actually worse in protection compared to DU M1s at the time. The reason for this is because congress would not allow the export of DU to Sweden during the test trials which lead to the DOD scrambling to come up with armor package without DU resulting in poor protection performance. This is why the Sweds complained on how they wanted the DU package instead. This was later fixed with technological advances in composite materials during the Greek trials.
2 Likes
That’s simply incorrect.
They assured the Swedes the protection packages were equivalent.
IDK where that picture is from that you’re posting, but considering all the typos and seemingly “newsarticle” writing style, it’s probably from exactly that.
There is no magic property that makes DU better than similar materials, in fact it is quite a poor choice if you care about weight efficiency of the armour, as DU (much like titanium that it is often alloyed with) suffers from adiabatic shear.
Adiabtic shear is an unwanted property that causes armour plates to fail, there has been a lot of R&D put into eliminating it from ballistic titanium alloys, even today it isn’t fully resolved and titanium is often thicker than it would theoretically need to be, or backed by another material to reduce the break-out effect.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a432790.pdf
The primary reason for using DU is quite simply it’s density, it allows for a substantial increase in KE protection without the need to completely rework the armour array and/or substantially increase the thickness of the armour package.
I think your miss understanding what is being said. It’s not that DU is some magical wonder material it’s that at the time the army lacked the technology to match the performance of their composite without DU. which resulted in poor protection. Also, regarding that they assured Sweden that the packages were equivalent I’m not sure where you got that statement but if they did say that I wouldn’t trust that statement too much we already know competing defense contracts things can get dirty. Like for example with France they supposedly jammed other countries GPS on their tanks during the navigation trials.
2 Likes
And the Germans giveing the Americans a Leopard 2 with less amour
I wouldn’t mind seeing your source on them assuring the Swedes the protection packages were equivalent
3 Likes
I would, since they quite literally tested a domestic M1A2 with DU in live fire testing and compared the results…
Never happened.
The leopard 2 prototype (not AV) which was bought was still the old armour layout, the Leopard 2AV which they tested was a fairly rushed prototype trying to meet American requirements.
It wasn’t “less armoured”.
They simply rushed the design and integration of the composites.